Contraception and God's Will

[Fauken]

To make it clear at the start, I support the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. I’ve just made an argument and provided a counter argument, and I’m interested in hearing opinions on both, along with your own counter arguments! Thank you all ahead of time!

Argument: “God let Sarah be pregnant by her 100 year old husband, and Mary conceived as a virgin. If contraception was truly against God’s will, he could make a woman conceive despite being on it. This suggests that God’s will is stopped by mere chemistry, which is a limit on Him.”

Counter-Argument: “Both Sarah and Our Lady left whether or not they would conceive up to God. This means to not impair or test. And just how God gives us the free will to sin or not to sin, to accept or reject his grace, and to believe or not to believe, we have the free will to say no and impose those consequences on ourselves.”

 

[Strydersroom]

I guess I don’t really understand the argument? Using “God’s Will” or “everything happens for a reason” does not really explain much, although to some it might explain everything. Given that studies show over 80% of Catholics use contraception, it might seem that many don’t see it as a mortal sin or sin at all.

 

[josephback]

To make it clear at the start, I support the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. I’ve just made an argument and provided a counter argument, and I’m interested in hearing opinions on both, along with your own counter arguments! Thank you all ahead of time!

Argument: “God let Sarah be pregnant by her 100 year old husband, and Mary conceived as a virgin. If contraception was truly against God’s will, he could make a woman conceive despite being on it. This suggests that God’s will is stopped by mere chemistry, which is a limit on Him.”

Counter-Argument: “Both Sarah and Our Lady left whether or not they would conceive up to God. This means to not impair or test. And just how God gives us the free will to sin or not to sin, to accept or reject his grace, and to believe or not to believe, we have the free will to say no and impose those consequences on ourselves.”

The former would be an argument appropriate to those who deny free will making man little more than a passive recipient. The latter preserves the doctrine of free will and God’s respect for our freedom.

 

[edwest2]

In 1968, Pope Paul VI saw what was coming and had Humanae Vitae published:

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

He warned what would happen if his words were not heeded. But, an event occurred that was “unprecedented in the history of the Church.”

From Regnum Christi:

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

The resulting confusion has brought us to today.

Ed

 

[RPRPsych]

To make it clear at the start, I support the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. I’ve just made an argument and provided a counter argument, and I’m interested in hearing opinions on both, along with your own counter arguments! Thank you all ahead of time!

Argument: “God let Sarah be pregnant by her 100 year old husband, and Mary conceived as a virgin. If contraception was truly against God’s will, he could make a woman conceive despite being on it. This suggests that God’s will is stopped by mere chemistry, which is a limit on Him.”

Besides being a fatalistic argument (no room for human will, just an arbitrary decree from God), this argument flounders because both the instances mentioned were miraculous conceptions, and in fact are directly connected to each other (Genesis 3:15; Genesis 22:18; Luke 1: 26-38). One cannot use miracles to argue against the order of nature (established by God) or natural law. Besides, in Sarah’s case, she and Abraham were certainly open to life (the resort to Hagar was only after a long period of infertility, and was a cultural norm at the time; cf. Rachel), and in Mary’s case, we are literally dealing with the mystery of the Incarnation.

Counter-Argument: “Both Sarah and Our Lady left whether or not they would conceive up to God. This means to not impair or test. And just how God gives us the free will to sin or not to sin, to accept or reject his grace, and to believe or not to believe, we have the free will to say no and impose those consequences on ourselves.”

This is true.

 

[Hatikvah]

Well, we have both free will and we should have a yearning (nay: an obligation!) to follow the will of God. So it is really “to sin or not to sin?”

With something like this matter, it cannot really compared to the sin of lying, where you may do it on a split second’s notice without the full opportunity to resist. This is a matter in which you probably have full consent, so…

Remember, we can, per our free will, act contrary to God’s will. God does have a definite, benevolent and made-up will, but we are part of it. God’s will is really a set of “guidelines” that need not necessarily be fulfilled (remember, though, we should always seek to do the will of the Lord).

“To sin or not to sin?” is the question here, and sin is evil. God will do as He pleases, but it is up to us to fill in the blanks, especially when it is a matter of free will. When God does have us in His mind, and He certainly looks out for us , we must recognize that and act with that on our conscience as both Sarah and Mary did.

This can actually be used as a theological argument against NFP, which is a “natural” form of birth control.

 

[Geist]

I understand and accept the logic behind being anti-contraceptive, but I will confess to being puzzled by the argument that we are not to use birth control(BC) because sex “must be open to the possibility of procreation”.

Given that ALL methods of BC have a failure rate, doesn’t that alone still leave the possibility of conception open, if only on a technical level?

(I’ve also wondered how that logic applies to married elderly/otherwise infertile couples who are sexually active too-isn’t all sex a sin for them since they cannot have children if this is taken literally?)

 

[ahs]

I understand and accept the logic behind being anti-contraceptive, but I will confess to being puzzled by the argument that we are not to use birth control(BC) because sex “must be open to the possibility of procreation”.

Well, we ARE allowed to practice birth control, as long as that does not involve contraception (i.e. birth regulation through periodic continence).
We are not to use CONTRACEPTION because each Marriage Act must “remain ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life” (i.e. be completed in the natural manner which God chose). (cf. CCC 2370, 2366)

Given that ALL methods of BC have a failure rate, doesn’t that alone still leave the possibility of conception open, if only on a technical level?

Sure. But the prohibition against contraception is not solely based upon whether it renders conception “impossible”. Contraception is an intentional choice to thwart the procreative nature of an act that we choose to engage in. In doing so, we mock the Marital Act and bear false witness with our bodies…and seek to remove the procreative from the unitive, in an act that God made both procreative AND unitive.

(I’ve also wondered how that logic applies to married elderly/otherwise infertile couples who are sexually active too-isn’t all sex a sin for them since they cannot have children if this is taken literally?)

Nope. The Marriage act need not be “fertile”, and procreation need not be “possible”…it need only be “ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life”. In other words, no act may be done to divide the procreative and unitive natures of the act…both must be respected, even when procreation is not likely to occur.

 

[Geist]

Well, we ARE allowed to practice birth control, as long as that does not involve contraception (i.e. birth regulation through periodic continence).
We are not to use CONTRACEPTION because each Marriage Act must “remain ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life” (i.e. be completed in the natural manner which God chose). (cf. CCC 2370, 2366)

Sure. But the prohibition against contraception is not solely based upon whether it renders conception “impossible”. Contraception is an intentional choice to thwart the procreative nature of an act that we choose to engage in. In doing so, we mock the Marital Act and bear false witness with our bodies…and seek to remove the procreative from the unitive, in an act that God made both procreative AND unitive.

Nope. The Marriage act need not be “fertile”, and procreation need not be “possible”…it need only be “ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life”. In other words, no act may be done to divide the procreative and unitive natures of the act…both must be respected, even when procreation is not likely to occur.

Ahhhhh, I get it, thanks.

 

[Fauken]

Well, we ARE allowed to practice birth control, as long as that does not involve contraception (i.e. birth regulation through periodic continence).
We are not to use CONTRACEPTION because each Marriage Act must “remain ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life” (i.e. be completed in the natural manner which God chose). (cf. CCC 2370, 2366)

Sure. But the prohibition against contraception is not solely based upon whether it renders conception “impossible”. Contraception is an intentional choice to thwart the procreative nature of an act that we choose to engage in. In doing so, we mock the Marital Act and bear false witness with our bodies…and seek to remove the procreative from the unitive, in an act that God made both procreative AND unitive.

Nope. The Marriage act need not be “fertile”, and procreation need not be “possible”…it need only be “ordered, per se, to the procreation of human life”. In other words, no act may be done to divide the procreative and unitive natures of the act…both must be respected, even when procreation is not likely to occur.

Yup yup yup!