Contraception Debate

[BruceK]

I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this pro-contraception dissident “catholic” on this issue as well as Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning. Here’s his critique of an article from This Rock magazine. He will be refered to as “Dissenter” and his words are in italics, the words of the orthodox Catholic will be inbold Dissenter seems to have some holes and logical fallacies in his argument, any feedback from anyone here will be greatly appreciated.
THIS ROCK magazine. Part 1. <<

OBJECTOR: It seems to me that a Catholic couple could use the infertile periods to enjoy sex while preventing pregnancy.

**CATHOLIC: That is possible. If a couple engages in sex with the intention of preventing pregnancywithout just causetheir motives are wrong. ****

Dissenter: I think it is the typical nonsensical pablum that passes for thinking among defenders of HV. Nowhere does CATHOLIC really address sex for pleasure outside the fertile period. In fact he (falsely) states: The male and female bodies are designed specifically for reproduction. If that were true, there would be no moral basis for sex intentionally limited to the infertile period in order to prevent reproduction, i.e., sex for pleasure, facilitated by NFP. It is a scientific fact that the male and female bodies (human sexuality) are designed to serve two separate ends of conjugal intercourse, procreation and unification. That is the moral justification for the Churchs sanction of NFP. If it were not true, NFP would not work to prevent reproduction.
So what the CATHOLIC says here that it is licit to engage in sex with the intention of preventing pregnancy for just cause.

**CATHOLIC: They have misused their sexual powers. But because sex is also for the closer union of husband and wife, they may engage in sex outside the fertile period
**

Dissenter: The CATHOLIC here justifies sex outside the fertile period (sex for pleasure) because sex is also for the closer union of husband and wife (unitive function). He is saying that it is licit to engage in conjugal intercourse from which procreation has been excluded, i.e., separated, in order to achieve its unitive purpose.

CATHOLIC: as long as they dont attempt to prevent pregnancy by interfering with how their bodies are supposed to work.

Dissenter:* The CATHOLIC here asserts an arbitrary but false restriction. NFP also attempts to prevent pregnancy by interfering with how their bodies are supposed to work. A female feels her greatest desire for conjugal intercourse during her fertile period (see JP II L&R pg 283). NFP requires that a couple reject this aspect of the females sexual nature in order to limit their conjugal intercourse to the infertile period to prevent pregnancy. NFP interferes with nature. CATHOLIC’s position makes the ultimate end of human sexuality - the propagation of the species - subservient to the working of penus and the vagina. That’s a perverse concept of conjugal morality.*

CATHOLIC: But we have to ask what makes an action moral or immoral. Motivation is one factor, as are results, but these are not the only factors to take into account. Even if the motives of couples using contraceptives and those not using them are similarand of course judging motives is a tricky businesswe still have a great difference in the objective methods being used.

Dissnter: As HV16(Humanae Vitae) points out, the purpose of couples using NFP and ABC is the same (not similar): HV16: It is true that in both cases [NFP and ABC] the husband and wife agree in positively willing to avoid children for acceptable reasons, seeking to be certain that offspring will not result HV16 makes it plain that the Churchs objection to ABC is the means not the end.

CATHOLIC: Your analogy is misguided. Using medicine to achieve health is attempting to restore the body to its natural state. Using contraception is against the natural functions of our bodies.

*Dissnter: The Church has no objection to breast implants, circumcision, etc. Is surgical implantation of breast enhancement restoring the body to its natural state? Is a 36 inch breast line more natural than a 32 inch breast line? Is a post-circumcision condition more natural than a pre-circumcision condition? God created human sexuality so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. Unification is a natural function of conjugal intercourse and human sexuality. The Church sanctions excluding procreation in support of the natural end of unification by means of NFP. CATHOLIC presents no justification for a claim that using artificial means to prevent procreation for the same purpose as NFP is immoral. Clearly this is a bogus argument. *

CATHOLIC: With that statement you have put yourself in the position of one who is denying the obvious. The male and female bodies are designed specifically for reproduction. That is so obvious as to be undeniable.

Dissenter: That the underlined statement is false is so obvious as to be undeniable. Revelation, science and the experience of married couples tell us that the sexuality of the male and female bodies is designed (by God) to serve two separate purposes. Since it is for that reason that the Church sanctions NFP, its sanction confirms that reality. CATHOLIC is arguing that procreation is the only moral justification for conjugal intercourse. But that contradicts the Churchs sanction of NFP and Gods will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.

End of part 1.

Again, your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated. In Christ**

 

[fabricdragon]

well first of all…
i really , truly, doubt that this person will respond to any argument you can make. They sound as though they have “made up their mind” and will likely be able to ignore, counter, or twist any argument you make. there are people who actually like to argue, and they have more practice, and are VERY good at making you chase your own tail.

that said?
first of all, by using NFP while we may be reducing the likelyhood of conception, we are NOT altering our bodies. we may be practicing discipline by , for example, avoiding sex at the time of highest fertility , but we are not altering when that is, or the actions of the body

not all women have highest desire at this time. most perhaps, but not all.

pills alter the fundamental chemistry of the body, thats what they DO… choosing when (or if) to have sex is not in the same category at all.

a condom blocks , to quote the CCC, the natural and full conjoining of the bodies. while i find it less of an issue , personally than hormones, that is the argument form the CCC… NFP doesnt hinder the “union of sexual contact” in any way. after all, people do not get pregnant every time they have sex (even if they would like to)

 

[BruceK]

Part 2 from This Rock magazine:

CATHOLIC: Pregnancy is not a matter of choice. Engaging in sex is a choice, but pregnancy is not. It is a matter of the natural processes once one engages in sex.

*Dissenter: Engaging in sex is a choice. Practicing NFP to enhance the possibility of pregnancy is a choice. Practicing NFP to exclude pregnancy is also a choice. *

CATHOLIC: In sexual morality, the crucial distinction is between working with the natural structures and functions of our body and working against them.

Dissenter: Procreation and unification are natural functions of our bodys sexuality which often are in conflict. The use of ABC, like NFP, to exclude procreation to resolve this conflict in support of the natural end of unification is working with the natural functions of our body, not working against them.

CATHOLIC:** A married person is obligated to follow the moral standards implied in that state of life. The Churchs teaching is not out of date. Rather, not using contraceptives is valid for all times because marriage is always ordered toward raising children, in addition to other purposes.**

Dissenter: This is a nonsensical statement. Raising children requires lifelong marriages for which God gave humans the gift of the unitive function of conjugal intercourse. The use of ABC for the same reasons that the Church sanctions NFP, supports the raising of children by its support of the unitive function and lifelong marriages.

CATHOLIC: Even cultures that have not been influenced by Christianity directly recognize this. They have seen it in the natural law, that is, the morality implied in the natural state of things. Sex leads to children. We act morally when we engage in sex with the intention of working with the natural processes.

Dissenter:* What CATHOLIC says, in effect, that procreation is the only justification for conjugal intercourse. If this were true, NFP would be immoral and the Churchs sanction of NFP would be equally immoral. *

CATHOLIC: The Catholic view advocates what is best for the human race because it encourages us to use our sexuality responsibly for the promotion of the human race.

Dissenter: JPII Love &Responsibility pg. 51 says that the proper end, the end per se, of the sexual urge is the propagation of the species. This requires two proximate, subservient ends, procreation and unification. The human race is promoted when humans use their sexuality responsibly by welcoming procreation when appropriate and excluding procreation in support of conjugal unification and lifelong marriages where appropriate. That is the justification for NFP and it also justifies ABC. <o></o>
Note: There is a fundamental reality that must be recognized in any discussion of conjugal morality: conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends, procreation and unification. On this point, revelation, science and the experience of married couples are in total agreement. This is the basis for the Church’s sanction of NFP. Any argument in defense of the Church’s prohibition of ABC that conflicts with this reality is ipso facto false.

Again, any feedback or rebuttals to Dissenter will be greatly appreciated.

 

[BruceK]

I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this pro-contraception dissident “catholic” on this issue as well as Humanae Vitae and Natural Family Planning. Here’s his critique of an article from This Rock magazine. He will be refered to as “Dissenter” and his words are in italics, the words of the orthodox Catholic will be inbold Dissenter seems to have some holes and logical fallacies in his argument, any feedback from anyone here will be greatly appreciated.
THIS ROCK magazine. Part 1. <<

OBJECTOR: It seems to me that a Catholic couple could use the infertile periods to enjoy sex while preventing pregnancy.

**CATHOLIC: That is possible. If a couple engages in sex with the intention of preventing pregnancywithout just causetheir motives are wrong. ******

Dissenter: I think it is the typical nonsensical pablum that passes for thinking among defenders of HV. Nowhere does CATHOLIC really address sex for pleasure outside the fertile period. In fact he (falsely) states: The male and female bodies are designed specifically for reproduction. If that were true, there would be no moral basis for sex intentionally limited to the infertile period in order to prevent reproduction, i.e., sex for pleasure, facilitated by NFP. It is a scientific fact that the male and female bodies (human sexuality) are designed to serve two separate ends of conjugal intercourse, procreation and unification. That is the moral justification for the Churchs sanction of NFP. If it were not true, NFP would not work to prevent reproduction.
So what the CATHOLIC says here that it is licit to engage in sex with the intention of preventing pregnancy for just cause.

**CATHOLIC: They have misused their sexual powers. But because sex is also for the closer union of husband and wife, they may engage in sex outside the fertile period
**

Dissenter: The CATHOLIC here justifies sex outside the fertile period (sex for pleasure) because sex is also for the closer union of husband and wife (unitive function). He is saying that it is licit to engage in conjugal intercourse from which procreation has been excluded, i.e., separated, in order to achieve its unitive purpose.

CATHOLIC: as long as they dont attempt to prevent pregnancy by interfering with how their bodies are supposed to work.

Dissenter:* The CATHOLIC here asserts an arbitrary but false restriction. NFP also attempts to prevent pregnancy by interfering with how their bodies are supposed to work. A female feels her greatest desire for conjugal intercourse during her fertile period (see JP II L&R pg 283). NFP requires that a couple reject this aspect of the females sexual nature in order to limit their conjugal intercourse to the infertile period to prevent pregnancy. NFP interferes with nature. CATHOLIC’s position makes the ultimate end of human sexuality - the propagation of the species - subservient to the working of penus and the vagina. That’s a perverse concept of conjugal morality.*

CATHOLIC: But we have to ask what makes an action moral or immoral. Motivation is one factor, as are results, but these are not the only factors to take into account. Even if the motives of couples using contraceptives and those not using them are similarand of course judging motives is a tricky businesswe still have a great difference in the objective methods being used.

Dissnter: As HV16(Humanae Vitae) points out, the purpose of couples using NFP and ABC is the same (not similar): HV16: It is true that in both cases [NFP and ABC] the husband and wife agree in positively willing to avoid children for acceptable reasons, seeking to be certain that offspring will not result HV16 makes it plain that the Churchs objection to ABC is the means not the end.

CATHOLIC: Your analogy is misguided. Using medicine to achieve health is attempting to restore the body to its natural state. Using contraception is against the natural functions of our bodies.

*Dissnter: The Church has no objection to breast implants, circumcision, etc. Is surgical implantation of breast enhancement restoring the body to its natural state? Is a 36 inch breast line more natural than a 32 inch breast line? Is a post-circumcision condition more natural than a pre-circumcision condition? God created human sexuality so that conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends. Unification is a natural function of conjugal intercourse and human sexuality. The Church sanctions excluding procreation in support of the natural end of unification by means of NFP. CATHOLIC presents no justification for a claim that using artificial means to prevent procreation for the same purpose as NFP is immoral. Clearly this is a bogus argument. *

CATHOLIC: With that statement you have put yourself in the position of one who is denying the obvious. The male and female bodies are designed specifically for reproduction. That is so obvious as to be undeniable.

Dissenter: That the underlined statement is false is so obvious as to be undeniable. Revelation, science and the experience of married couples tell us that the sexuality of the male and female bodies is designed (by God) to serve two separate purposes. Since it is for that reason that the Church sanctions NFP, its sanction confirms that reality. CATHOLIC is arguing that procreation is the only moral justification for conjugal intercourse. But that contradicts the Churchs sanction of NFP and Gods will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.

End of part 1.

Again, your feedback and two cents will be greatly appreciated. In Christ

 

[BruceK]

Part 2 from This Rock magazine:

CATHOLIC: Pregnancy is not a matter of choice. Engaging in sex is a choice, but pregnancy is not. It is a matter of the natural processes once one engages in sex.

*Dissenter: Engaging in sex is a choice. Practicing NFP to enhance the possibility of pregnancy is a choice. Practicing NFP to exclude pregnancy is also a choice. *

CATHOLIC: In sexual morality, the crucial distinction is between working with the natural structures and functions of our body and working against them.

Dissenter: Procreation and unification are natural functions of our bodys sexuality which often are in conflict. The use of ABC, like NFP, to exclude procreation to resolve this conflict in support of the natural end of unification is working with the natural functions of our body, not working against them.

CATHOLIC:** A married person is obligated to follow the moral standards implied in that state of life. The Churchs teaching is not out of date. Rather, not using contraceptives is valid for all times because marriage is always ordered toward raising children, in addition to other purposes.**

Dissenter: This is a nonsensical statement. Raising children requires lifelong marriages for which God gave humans the gift of the unitive function of conjugal intercourse. The use of ABC for the same reasons that the Church sanctions NFP, supports the raising of children by its support of the unitive function and lifelong marriages.

CATHOLIC: Even cultures that have not been influenced by Christianity directly recognize this. They have seen it in the natural law, that is, the morality implied in the natural state of things. Sex leads to children. We act morally when we engage in sex with the intention of working with the natural processes.

Dissenter:* What CATHOLIC says, in effect, that procreation is the only justification for conjugal intercourse. If this were true, NFP would be immoral and the Churchs sanction of NFP would be equally immoral. *

CATHOLIC: The Catholic view advocates what is best for the human race because it encourages us to use our sexuality responsibly for the promotion of the human race.

Dissenter: JPII Love &Responsibility pg. 51 says that the proper end, the end per se, of the sexual urge is the propagation of the species. This requires two proximate, subservient ends, procreation and unification. The human race is promoted when humans use their sexuality responsibly by welcoming procreation when appropriate and excluding procreation in support of conjugal unification and lifelong marriages where appropriate. That is the justification for NFP and it also justifies ABC. <o></o>
Note: There is a fundamental reality that must be recognized in any discussion of conjugal morality: conjugal intercourse serves two separate ends, procreation and unification. On this point, revelation, science and the experience of married couples are in total agreement. This is the basis for the Church’s sanction of NFP. Any argument in defense of the Church’s prohibition of ABC that conflicts with this reality is ipso facto false.

Again, any feedback or rebuttals to Dissenter will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Michael700]

Our blessed Pope Benedict is crystal clear on the subject of contraception. The open rebellion of Catholics against the teaching of the Pope is shameful because it’s unfaithful. It sounds like the dissenter is being emboldened by the give and take of debating. The most powerful thing you could do is pray for them.

 

[Rob_Brown]

CCC 2370 and CCC 2399, if memory serves me correctly, pull out your copy of the catechism and quote it verbatim to them, you can’t argue with the CCC.

 

[milkbar]

CATHOLIC: Even cultures that have not been influenced by Christianity directly recognize this. They have seen it in the natural law, that is, the morality implied in the natural state of things. Sex leads to children. We act morally when we engage in sex with the intention of working with the natural processes.

Dissenter:* What CATHOLIC says, in effect, that procreation is the only justification for conjugal intercourse. If this were true, NFP would be immoral and the Churchs sanction of NFP would be equally immoral. *

This is an incorrect conclusion because it ignores the fact that any Catholic couple practicing NFP realizes that no one can practice NFP to absolute perfection, and therefore conception is always possible even when they believe it to be improbable.

The same is technically true for the use of ABC–conception is possible. There is a failure rate even for tubal ligations and vasectomies. Improbable, yes, but it happens. So any couple using ABC in the belief that they are “safe” from pregnancy is mistaken. If it is truly, absolutely necessary not to add to the family at this time, prayerful abstinence is the only foolproof solution.

You might find this helpful:
envoymagazine.com/familyplanning.htm

 

[manualman]

I am often amused by those whomake the argument that NFP is morally equivalent to contraception and that it is mere sophistry to claim there is a difference. I like to point out the fact that NFP when properly practiced and the woman is in overall good health is, indeed a very reliable means of birth control. (AHA, they think!) I then suggest that they give it a try for a year. (No WAY! is the usual reaction) Why not, I say? It is virtually free (no prepscription or condoms to buy), no side effects, none of the significant health risks present in ALL the contraceptive methods. Why not?

(Pause, sputter, etc…) All those restrictions! When my wife and I want to, WANT to! I don’t want to abstain.

Precisely. And THERE is EXACTLY why NFP is a moral means of spacing children while contraception is not. It’s HARD, it requires sacrifice, much like nearly every other human endeavor that is worth a dmn.

Contraception defenders are desperate to avoid that abstinance time that is at the heart of NFP. That abstinance time is precisely why NFP doesn’t destroy the link between sex and life while contraception DOES. You never forget for a moment that God made sex linked to babies. Every month, your “serious reason” for avoiding conception faces a crucible test. It comes up in your prayer times, like other forms of fasting, you hear God’s voice more clearly than during “feasting” times.

Contraception users have none of that. It is self-perpetuation instead of self-limiting. There is NOTHING about the routine of contraception that nudges the user back towards being open to the gift of life. Slowly the link dissolves and sex becomes merely about the pleasure.

Let’s face some obvious facts here, as catholics. Sex isn’t a random feature that occurred due to blind evolution. God made sex intimately linked to procreation. We’re arrogant fools to think we understand the complex interplay well enough to simply chop off the connection with a pill and suffer no spiritual side effects.

Time for catholics to grow up and trust God instead of their own puny, limited understanding of the universe, the human soul and the gift of life. To make it even more obvious, God made the spiritual effects of contraception plain to see for anybody interested in looking: rampant infidelity, the demeaning of woman in culture, epidemic divorce, and suicidal lifetime fertility rates (in EVERY nation in which contraception is well rooted). This isn’t just 21st century hindsight talking. Paul VI PREDICTED most of these right there in HV.

In short, tell him to give it up - he’ll never outsmart God.

 

[prettylarge]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

 

[whm]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

You are ill informed. Handing out condoms increase the occurrence of STD’s. See what a Harvard professor has to say on the matter.

wnd.com/index.php?pageId=92702

 

[fix]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

wrong.

 

[tjm190]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

True to an extent, but you fail to account for moral hazard- for example, consider the helmet. If you’re going to do something that’s likely to injure your head, it would be wise to wear a helmet. However, the sense of protection you get from the helmet is likely to cause you to go injure yourself more often. So while each individual activity is less likely to have an undesirable outcome, society will see more of that outcome overall. The article linked above shows that moral hazard has come into play in the AIDS crisis.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

Oh yeah, all those people who are having premartical sex and engaging in prostitution but not using condoms because “oh no the Pope said I can’t”

Ridiculous.

If people followed Catholic teaching (on chastity and celibary, not just contraception), STDs would nearly disappear.

 

[Michael700]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

I disagree with you here. Catholic missionaries preach against using condoms/contraception in the wider context of a pure life ie abstinence until marriage, or celibacy. There’s no doubting the sexual act between a man and a woman has been degraded to a largely selfish hedonistic experience in the minds of many people since contraception became the new norm in the 60’s, which has in turn contributed to the ‘culture of death’. Contracting an STD might lead certain people to truly repent of their ways.

 

[BruceK]

If people are going to have sex, it is much better for them to use a condom than to contract STD’s. There is no doubt that Catholic missionaries preaching against condoms are responsible for a lot of deaths…probably as many as the inquisition. Luckily people smartened up and started preaching for the use of condoms.

I’m not going to pile on what almost everyone else has been saying about this extremely misguided individual except to say that if one does not have self-control and acts immorally, then it really doesn’t matter that the act of fornication is accompanied by the use of a condom or not.

 

[BruceK]

**I’ve been having this ongoing debate on the issue of contraception with this person whom I will call Sub. He is somewhow not convinced that the practice of artificial birth control(ABC) is immoral, what would be the best compelling argument for the immorality of ABC? **

Me: One method is harmful; the other is healthy. One works with nature; one works against nature. It’s a similar case with NFP and ABC, but we as a society, are often blinded to the unnatural and harmful effects of ABC. <<

Sub: You have presented no credible argument that NFP works with nature whereas ABC works against nautre. Absent that your example is meaningless. In fact, both NFP and ABC interfere with nature is certain ways. But, you have presented no credible argument that it is immoral to interfere with nature. Why doesn’t the Church condemn circumcistion, breast enhancement, implanting pig valves in human hearts, etc. if it is immoral to interfere with nature?

ME >> Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC, and everybody know it - deep down-inside he you know it. <<

Sub: True, Practicing NFP is radically different from using ABC. No one denies that. The question is, “is using ABC immoral?”.

 

[BruceK]

Again, I’ve been having this debate with this protagonist(Sub) who believes that artificial birth control and natural family planning are morally equivalent. This is to the extebt he’s willing to resort to. So I’m looking for help in what would be the best rebuttal to his arguments. My words are in bold:

**Me: So I ask you, in what way does NFP specifically alter the act to render it sterile…? **
<> A conjugal act in natural response to the sexual urge will result in a certain frequency of conceptions - it is a potentially procreative act. NFP by intentionally limiting conjugal acts to infertile periods, i.e., by excluding procreation, alters the conjugal act from a potentially procreative act to a non-procreative act.

Me: more to the point: By what unatural means - either artificial or Chemical - does NFP intentionally limits the conjugal act and excludes procreation to a non-procrative act(sterile)? <<
Sub: There are unnatural means, other than chemical or artificial, to limit the conjugal act and exclude procreation. NFP unnaturally limits conjugal intercourse to infertile periods to exclude procreation. A couple who followed their natural inclinations would engage in conjugal intercourse without regard to the fertility cycle. In fact given the increased desire on the part of most women for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period, they woud engage in conjugal intercourse more frequently during that period. So folloowing their natural inclinations, their conjugal intercourse would be potentially procreative. Couples practicing NFP, however, act against their natural inclinations and, unnaturally, limit their conjugal intercourse to infertile periods, thus altering their conjugal intercourse to nonprocreative acts by their unnatural practice. Note that the testimony of married couples branded NFP as more unnatural than any other form of birth control.

 

[BruceK]

**This deals directly with Humanae Vitae. My antagonist whom I’ve been having this ongoing debate with states that HV is self-contradictory. He base this on paragraphs 11 and 12; his premise is as follows: **

Hv11 says that each and every conjugal act must be open to procreation.
But, God created human sexuality so that each and every conjugal act is not open to procreation.
Therefore HV11 contradicts God’s will a revealed through His creation of human sexuality. HV11 rejects God’s will so known.

HV12 states that the “inseparable connection” between the two ends of conjugal intercourse is God’s will.

But God crerated human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparately connected”; God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse when he created human sexuality.

Therefore, HV12’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is false. It is a rejection of God’s will as revealed through His creation of Human sexuality

**So I ask you what specifically is faulty with his reasoning, logic and his reading of HV? **

 

[milkbar]

We must leave every act open to procreation. We must not close any act to procreation. The existence of infertile periods, or even infertile people, does not mean that we are permitted to create our own infertile periods or infertility. The sin is in our action, in what we do. Therefore HV11 does not contradict God; it’s not addressing what God has done but what we are to do.

Saying we ought not to abstain simply because we’re hardwired to want to do the opposite when we’re fertile is like saying we ought never to fast because we’re hardwired to get hungry. We have biological urges and we have the God-given ability to choose whether to obey them… just as we have the ability to choose whether to obey God.

Re: “human sexuality,” I’d have to hear more about what that person means. Are they referring to sexual orientation? Biological urges? Again, what we want is absolutely not tied to what we do unless we choose to act on our wants, and choice is the crucial element in sin vs. obedience. The Church will not redefine what constitutes disobedience in this area simply because there now exists a larger public movement for tolerance of sinful lifestyles.

Otherwise if the person means simply that our biological urges do not always necessarily include simultaneous urges to procreate, that’s not the point. The point is that we must leave every act open to the creation of new life; or, more clearly, we must not close any act to the creation of new life. The two are linked naturally; one thing leads to another if you are in a fertile period, and if you’re naturally not, it’s still natural and right, working with God’s design with our own choices. Any separation of pleasure and purpose which we knowingly effect through artificial means and/or for selfish reasons is where sin begins.