Contraception hypothetical

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjm190
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry. I guess I missed something. Any poster is wrong to suggest you leave the faith. Besides being against forum rules, it’s non-charitable and, well, selfish. Many here, aren’t as patient as the Church is. My apologies for my mistake and for any rudeness of others here.
Ah! Did I say suggest I leave! I’m way off tonight. I meant it was stated that disagreeing on this issue was tantamount to quitting Catholicism.
Oh, OK. Well, we’re all called to a higher standard. By Christ. Even some of the clergy fall short. Some publicly, others privately.
So I guess I mistook your “I’ll be fine” to mean that as long as a few vocal Bishops disagreed, you could too. Not sure how I got that idea.
I know the standard Christ holds us too, but Christ isn’t the one condemning contraception.
Well more or less I did- I wasn’t stating that they were correct, just that the “you have to agree with the Church” argument clearly isn’t a strong one when high ranking members of the church don’t believe it.
Really? That’s some claim. Got any proof?
Ahhhhh. Misstated- meant to say “It’s no surprise that the people the Church gives power agree with her teachings” or something like that- not to imply a conspiracy, just to show that it makes sense that the new bishops are in line with the teachings, rather than to imply conspiracy.
Really? That’s some claim. Got any proof?
There have always been dissidents. And there are still plenty more out there. The Church isn’t like the Nazi’s. Squashing any opposition. Really. One might think you’ve been watching those Anti-Catholic conspiracy movies.
Squashing heads no- people in general are unlikely to give power to people they disagree with on hot button issues.
Quite right. And only the ones interested in the truth will seek it.
And since the truth is best uncovered through logic, we seem to be having a good search, with some occasional minor missteps.
 
That is a very key concept here.
But what kind of love? Forever love? Love until we split or I find a better love, love? Love as long as you’re here love?

You know about the four different words Greek has for love, right? Which one of those best describes the love you mean?

But alas, I can’t continue tonight. I have to be up early tomorrow. But we’ll come back to this. But it may be Monday based on how busy I am on weekends. I’ll try to be back tomorrow night to continue the discussion but I can’t promise.

Have a great weekend.
I meant what love used to mean, before it was used with respect to brief shallow relationships or items. I saw some ambiguity, so I tried to hint at what I meant by starting with the affection line- fell short I guess.

And the best thing about the forums is that I have no less than over 9000 people to talk to while you enjoy real life. And you aren’t the OP, so don’t have to respond to every single post. Enjoy you busy weekend!
 
And now we know the bottom line - you do not accept the authority of the Church.

Either Christ started a Church or he did not.

The Church is it or some other ecuminical community is.

IF Christ started a Church and IF it is the Catholic Church, then every thing she teaches about Faith and Morals IS the teaching of Christ. IF the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, with his authority, then you and I should both leave and find the real one.
 
And now we know the bottom line - you do not accept the authority of the Church.

Either Christ started a Church or he did not.

The Church is it or some other ecuminical community is.

IF Christ started a Church and IF it is the Catholic Church, then every thing she teaches about Faith and Morals IS the teaching of Christ. IF the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, with his authority, then you and I should both leave and find the real one.
Well considering consecrated members of the church are willing and able to break with the church on this issue as well as others (I went to a Jesuit high school), it’s quite clear you can be a member of this Catholic church yet reject some of her teachings.
 
Well considering consecrated members of the church are willing and able to break with the church on this issue as well as others (I went to a Jesuit high school), it’s quite clear you can be a member of this Catholic church yet reject some of her teachings.
ugh! Dissent from authentic, magisterial Church teaching doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. It means the person dissenting is wrong. Whether that person ceases to be Catholic or not depends on several factors. I will also say that the bible is VERY clear about those in authority who lead other’s astray (matthew 18), which is what those in authority who dissent from authentic Church teaching are doing. The Church has taught through the ages that contraception is wrong, it was fairly recently that ALL Christians believed this teaching. Sex is made for marriage. Sex makes babies. Sex bonds couples. Sex is a renewal of the marriage covenant and is sacramental. To try to separate these aspects of sex lessens the act.

The problem, tjm1990, is that you want a nice scientific study of LOVE and SEX and there is none and can’t be one. We can study the physical effects and affects of love, but science can’t prove or disprove LOVE. There is no study that can show that contraceptive sex diminishes or breaks the sacramental nature of sex–because this is not a science experiement…it is about faith and authority and the basics of religious belief. Science can no more prove that marital sex is sacramental (and can be “broken” by contraception) than it can prove that people have souls.
 
ugh! Dissent from authentic, magisterial Church teaching doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. It means the person dissenting is wrong. Whether that person ceases to be Catholic or not depends on several factors. I will also say that the bible is VERY clear about those in authority who lead other’s astray (matthew 18), which is what those in authority who dissent from authentic Church teaching are doing. The Church has taught through the ages that contraception is wrong, it was fairly recently that ALL Christians believed this teaching. Sex is made for marriage. Sex makes babies. Sex bonds couples. Sex is a renewal of the marriage covenant and is sacramental. To try to separate these aspects of sex lessens the act.
My citation of those in disagreement was merely to show that breaking with church teaching does not necessitate leaving the Church. Again, if you want to make a claim about something being lessened, please enlightenment me as to your reasoning. After that, we can discuss whether or not lessening the act is sinful.
The problem, tjm190, is that you want a nice scientific study of LOVE and SEX and there is none and can’t be one. We can study the physical effects and affects of love, but science can’t prove or disprove LOVE. There is no study that can show that contraceptive sex diminishes or breaks the sacramental nature of sex–because this is not a science experiement…it is about faith and authority and the basics of religious belief. Science can no more prove that marital sex is sacramental (and can be “broken” by contraception) than it can prove that people have souls.
If you wish to make a claim with no logical evidence, then I ask for scriptural evidence. If there is no scriptural evidence, I ask for scientific evidence. If you don’t have anything, then you really have no business making that claim.
 
My citation of those in disagreement was merely to show that breaking with church teaching does not necessitate leaving the Church. Again, if you want to make a claim about something being lessened, please enlightenment me as to your reasoning. After that, we can discuss whether or not lessening the act is sinful.

If you wish to make a claim with no logical evidence, then I ask for scriptural evidence. If there is no scriptural evidence, I ask for scientific evidence. If you don’t have anything, then you really have no business making that claim.
How about the Catechism on Marriage (there are foot notes you can research)
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1615 Sacraments at the Service of Communion
There’s a lot I could quote from there, you should read that whole section but here’s one tidbit for you:
<<1638 "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."142 >>
Here’s another:
<<1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152 >>
and another:
<<1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163 >>
and one more:
<<2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

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.158 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:159

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.160 >>
 
I know the standard Christ holds us too, but Christ isn’t the one condemning contraception.
I understand he didn’t condemn slavery, either. I bet there are thousands of things humans do today that he didn’t condemn while here on Earth. But that doesn’t make them morally OK to do. There is more to our faith than just what appears to be obvious in the bible.

What Jesus did do was take us back to the old testament, quite often. And at one point he suggested that “in the beginning, it was not so.”

Why is that important? Today is today. “In the beginning” was a very different place and time and the world is not as it is today. Can we ignore something biblical because it was a different time and place?
 
I understand he didn’t condemn slavery, either. I bet there are thousands of things humans do today that he didn’t condemn while here on Earth. But that doesn’t make them morally OK to do. There is more to our faith than just what appears to be obvious in the bible.

What Jesus did do was take us back to the old testament, quite often. And at one point he suggested that “in the beginning, it was not so.”

Why is that important? Today is today. “In the beginning” was a very different place and time and the world is not as it is today. Can we ignore something biblical because it was a different time and place?
I was merely making the point that, while Christ holds us all to a higher standard, that wasn’t relevant to a discussion of my being necessitated to accept Church teachings regardless of merit when consecrated individual alloted themselves that right too.
And what have i been ignoring?
 
An Jennifer- quoting the Church to display that the Church believes the Church’s position to be correct, meaning that the Church is right is about as circular as an argument can get. If you believe the Church has some good points, you are more than welcome to state them. (Btw, I will hereby excuse your absence from this thread until your power returns- you might wanna save your battery for urgent matters or something)
 
An Jennifer- quoting the Church to display that the Church believes the Church’s position to be correct, meaning that the Church is right is about as circular as an argument can get. If you believe the Church has some good points, you are more than welcome to state them. (Btw, I will hereby excuse your absence from this thread until your power returns- you might wanna save your battery for urgent matters or something)
That’s kage-ar, not me…and I seriously doubt she needs you to excuse her absence for anything…

Let’s see, the Catholic Church assembled and codified the Bible–you know, scripture. The Church holds the magesterial teachings of Christ and the Pope takes those teachings and makes them clear and applicable for us today. You asked for scriptural references regarding marriage/sex and I gave you MORE than you asked for by citing Church documents that reference scripture and Catholic thought throughout the ages. I’m not sure what you expect. The Church may be understood logically and rationally and many Catholic writers through the centuries have done that (imagine that 2000+ years of scholarly work)
newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm
However, from what I understand of the study of logic, there are certain “givens” in each form of study that must be assumed. Logic doesn’t stand alone. Science is not the end all and be all of our understanding, either. Science isn’t in opposition to religion. My husband is a research scientist/professor. He’s also a devout, practicing Catholic and the most logical person I know.

What I would hope you would do, is to actually study the actual writings of the Church to understand WHAT she teaches and WHY she teaches it. To study and research the actual writings and follow up the footnotes and scriptural references. A Catholic online board is not indepth study and really neither is following all of my and other’s links. We can offer our insights, links to the works, our anecdotes, our experiences, but the actual work of STUDY must be done by you. Couple this with prayer for understanding and enlightenment and maybe you might get somewhere.
 
If a couple uses a condom with the understanding that a child will be conceived if and only if God wills it, how is this couple denying God’s will?
It’s been a long time since the question began…

If your question has already been addressed with these points… sorry, I didn’t take the time to read everything that has been said. If I am not mistaken your opinion is clear, judging from some things that I have read on this thread.

So another way to ask your question might be why would the Church teach that using Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy is okay and that condom use is not? This is assuming “responsible” use of both (meaning there is very good reason for avoiding pregnancy).

Quoting the Encyclical *Humanae Vitae * (I am guessing you have probably already read it), but it never hurts to do so again:

Faithfulness to God’s Design
  1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source
I remember reading a post where you mention that quoting Church sources to support Church teaching is not as solid as one might suspect or can turn into a cyclical argument. But the arguments here are based on natural law not Church teaching.

I think Pope Paul VI draws on a good point here. God, after all, gave us everything we need for procreation… including a natural period of fertility. Condoms are not necessary as contraceptives… we have natural, God given methods to achieve the purpose you suggest.

My two main points:

(1) Without getting into any details it places a physical barrier between you and your spouse; albeit, I will acknowledge from the physical sense, a thin one… But it is amazing what a thin barrier can do!

(2) I think the first response in this entire thread has a good point… I’ll raise it in a different manner… As a human being a woman’s body is a very intricate union of body and soul, separable only by death. Our souls interact so intimately with our bodies. The interior castle houses ourselves and welcomes the Holy Spirit. God lives inside of us, especially when we receive the Eucharist. We are in an intimate union with our creator and God. When we make God our welcome guest and are truly, spiritually open to Him this can have physical effects. Our body is a very spiritual creation, which is uniquely open to the miraculous touch of God. Therefore, I believe (thanks to the wisdom of the Catholic Church) that as stewards of the gift of sexuality and the ability to share in the creation of new life, we need to open all possibilities to God, especially ones that deal with the physiology of our bodies.

Contraception by nature puts that barrier in and does not allow God to intervene naturally. Rather, in the case you present it is asking God to jump through several hoops all while intervening through relying on possibly a “broken condom” or one’s inattentiveness. What one says through their actions is not asking God to be a partner in the creation of a new life here… it is asking Him to break down a door and push His way in if that’s what he really wants.

God Bless
 
I remember reading a post where you mention that quoting Church sources to support Church teaching is not as solid as one might suspect or can turn into a cyclical argument. But the arguments here are based on natural law not Church teaching.
I also stated that if said person believed the Church had good points in the article they were linking me too, there would be no harm in stating the arguments themselves. Unless we’re thinking of different posts, which is quite conceivable.
I think Pope Paul VI draws on a good point here. God, after all, gave us everything we need for procreation… including a natural period of fertility. Condoms are not necessary as contraceptives… we have natural, God given methods to achieve the purpose you suggest.
But the presence of natural alternatives does not make other methods sinful- especially since the two can by used together.
My two main points:
(1) Without getting into any details it places a physical barrier between you and your spouse; albeit, I will acknowledge from the physical sense, a thin one… But it is amazing what a thin barrier can do!
When trying to prove an intrinsic evil, making arguments specific to one method doesn’t do much to help your case.
(2) I think the first response in this entire thread has a good point… I’ll raise it in a different manner… As a human being a woman’s body is a very intricate union of body and soul, separable only by death. Our souls interact so intimately with our bodies. The interior castle houses ourselves and welcomes the Holy Spirit. God lives inside of us, especially when we receive the Eucharist. We are in an intimate union with our creator and God. When we make God our welcome guest and are truly, spiritually open to Him this can have physical effects. Our body is a very spiritual creation, which is uniquely open to the miraculous touch of God. Therefore, I believe (thanks to the wisdom of the Catholic Church) that as stewards of the gift of sexuality and the ability to share in the creation of new life, we need to open all possibilities to God, especially ones that deal with the physiology of our bodies.
Contraception by nature puts that barrier in and does not allow God to intervene naturally. Rather, in the case you present it is asking God to jump through several hoops all while intervening through relying on possibly a “broken condom” or one’s inattentiveness. What one says through their actions is not asking God to be a partner in the creation of a new life here… it is asking Him to break down a door and push His way in if that’s what he really wants.
God Bless
Again we return to the putting God to the test-ish argument. If God says it’s my time to die, is it wrong to make Him “jump through hoops” via life support? If God wants me to trip over my shoelaces? We don’t know God’s will, especially with respect to the creation of new life, so we can’t be said to be trying to prevent it when we take action to reduce the probability of certain outcomes.
Well God is required to jump through hoops for both NFP and contraception- and for NFP he actually has to keep sperm alive longer than normal or somehow get an egg to the sperm when it shouldn’t be.
 
Kage here, not Jennifer.

Question, do you believe Christ started the Catholic Church and that His promises in Scripture are true?
 
That’s kage-ar, not me…and I seriously doubt she needs you to excuse her absence for anything…
Well sometimes people take these threads a little to seriously and feel like they will somehow loose their argument if they go awhile without posting- just trying maintain my OP ethics.
Let’s see, the Catholic Church assembled and codified the Bible–you know, scripture. The Church holds the magesterial teachings of Christ and the Pope takes those teachings and makes them clear and applicable for us today. You asked for scriptural references regarding marriage/sex and I gave you MORE than you asked for by citing Church documents that reference scripture and Catholic thought throughout the ages. I’m not sure what you expect. The Church may be understood logically and rationally and many Catholic writers through the centuries have done that (imagine that 2000+ years of scholarly work)
And as I said, if you believe they make good arguments, make those arguments yourself yourself. The argument is independent of the arguer.
newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm
However, from what I understand of the study of logic, there are certain “givens” in each form of study that must be assumed. Logic doesn’t stand alone. Science is not the end all and be all of our understanding, either. Science isn’t in opposition to religion. My husband is a research scientist/professor. He’s also a devout, practicing Catholic and the most logical person I know.
Axioms, yes. Even with extreme skepticism, you must assume your mind exists.
What I would hope you would do, is to actually study the actual writings of the Church to understand WHAT she teaches and WHY she teaches it. To study and research the actual writings and follow up the footnotes and scriptural references. A Catholic online board is not indepth study and really neither is following all of my and other’s links. We can offer our insights, links to the works, our anecdotes, our experiences, but the actual work of STUDY must be done by you. Couple this with prayer for understanding and enlightenment and maybe you might get somewhere.
I’ve been through 12 years of Catholic school, and the “evils of contraception” has taught 6th through 12th grade. I’m not interested in most of the studying options proposed because I’ve been through them already. Newbetx proposed something I haven’t seen before, so I’m (slowly) doing that- but I’ve looked through the relevant encyclicals on more than one occasion.
 
Kage here, not Jennifer.

Question, do you believe Christ started the Catholic Church and that His promises in Scripture are true?
okay, I get, you’re different people.

And yes I do. I do not believe this frees the church as it stands from criticism on it’s stances however.
 
When trying to prove an intrinsic evil, making arguments specific to one method doesn’t do much to help your case.
I was trying to address to the specific question you began with about condoms. It is not too feasible to make an argument against all the intrinsically evil methods of birth control in a single argument that will satisfy someone who’s questions run as deep as your own.

For example, I can’t argue against condom use the exact same way I argue against ‘the pill.’

Anyway, I’ll focus on the point about a physical barrier during the sexual act being immoral. God asks us, and our spouse should ask us, to give all of ourselves and not hold anything back during the sexual act. However, placing a physical barrier between two people is something a man and woman do to hold something back that is specific to the sexual act. Since it is the nature of the man to give in this specific way, the argument when talking about condom use really focuses on the role of the man.

Do you see this another way?
Do we not have to give and receive all we can during each sexual act?

I am trying not to jump to conclusions but I did sense a little hostility in the last reply… I also want to point out that I am not trying to be hostile towards you (just in case you thought so).

Pax
 
I was trying to address to the specific question you began with about condoms. It is not too feasible to make an argument against all the intrinsically evil methods of birth control in a single argument that will satisfy someone who’s questions run as deep as your own.
Haha, I almost forgot this all started with a condom question- my apologies.
For example, I can’t argue against condom use the exact same way I argue against ‘the pill.’
Well for an intrinsic evil, you should be able to make a universal argument against it, regardless of method. I could argue that murder is an intrinsic evil without specifically addressing the individual means by which one can commit murder (I wouldn’t have to make a separate argument for guns, knives, elaborate death traps…)
Anyway, I’ll focus on the point about a physical barrier during the sexual act being immoral. God asks us, and our spouse should ask us, to give all of ourselves and not hold anything back during the sexual act. However, placing a physical barrier between two people is something a man and woman do to hold something back that is specific to the sexual act. Since it is the nature of the man to give in this specific way, the argument when talking about condom use really focuses on the role of the man.
Do you see this another way?
Do we not have to give and receive all we can during each sexual act?
I see the total giving of self to be on a spiritual and emotional level- the unitive aspect of sex. Of course, this is manifested physically with hormones and the like, but this total giving of self is seemingly independent of the presence of a thin barrier.
I am trying not to jump to conclusions but I did sense a little hostility in the last reply… I also want to point out that I am not trying to be hostile towards you (just in case you thought so).
No hostility intended, apologies if i was a little terse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top