S
Senyorico
Guest
P.S. For those who wish to answer, please cite your references because I really want to know the official policy of the Church on this matter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
angel12
Guest
Do you not have a Catechism?
Para. 2370: Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Para. 2399: The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
Para. 2370: Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Code:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
W
Wesrock
Guest
No.
Humanae Vitae answered this question for the modern world definitively:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
If you’re interested I can dig up some Patristic quotes, too.
I’m sure Saint Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body must also address this.
Humanae Vitae answered this question for the modern world definitively:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-v...ments/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370, 2399:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
If you’re interested I can dig up some Patristic quotes, too.
I’m sure Saint Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body must also address this.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Catholics can use Natural Family Planning.
Not Artificial Birth Control.
Not Artificial Birth Control.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Theology of the Body is a large work and I haven’t found every citation, but here’s a Table of Contents to the whole thing with hyperlinks. See sections 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120.
118 - 120 speak to your question of contraception very directly, while I think 114 - 116 speak to Humanae Vitae as a whole. But I’ve only skimmed TotB.
Edit: I’ve skimmed more and could add a whole list of other relevant sections, but if I point to too much it becomes overwhelming. Needless to say, there’s more to explore in there.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
118 - 120 speak to your question of contraception very directly, while I think 114 - 116 speak to Humanae Vitae as a whole. But I’ve only skimmed TotB.
Edit: I’ve skimmed more and could add a whole list of other relevant sections, but if I point to too much it becomes overwhelming. Needless to say, there’s more to explore in there.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
A handy searchable copy of the Catechism for you http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
A handy searchable copy of the Catechism for you http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
D
DeSales111
Guest
What does sex become without being open to life? Just look at the secular world. I wish I could go back in time and give my all to the Lord, yes, instead of using and promoting birth control, I so wish I would have been more open to raising some saints for the Lord. My wife and I lost our baby early this yesr so I guess I really understand just how precious and what a gift life is from God. If you have contraceptions, do it for God, throw them where they belong, in the trash.
1
1ke
Guest
What is making you doubt whether the Church teaches contraception is a sin against the sixth commandment?because I really want to know the official policy of the Church on this matter
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
There are no loopholes and never will be.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.