Contraception hypothetical

[Jennifer_J]

You are very frustrating to argue with. First you want us to sum up all of Church thought on the matter and then tell us we must give you references. I and others have done both and yet it’s still not enough for you. When we give references you say they don’t “count” because they are from the Church… to be honest I don’t think you want an answer, you just want to argue and feel you are right and the Church is wrong. Well guess what, the Church has been around a WHOLE lot longer than you and your feeble attempt at telling her she’s wrong.

God created sex. He said be fruitful and multiply. He gave us the 10 commandments that say not to covet and commit adultery. He gave us sacraments including matrimony. He punished those who sought the pleasure of sex and not the consequences. Scripture tells us that we are to love our spouses as God loves the Church.

Here’s a way to think about marriage, sacraments and sex. Marriage is a sacrament. Sex is a renewal and physical expression of those vows and therefore sacramental in nature and also must be between a man and woman. Holy Communion is a sacrament. It was instituted by Christ and has certain properties to be valid, ie it must be wheat bread and grape wine and the correct words must be spoken and the intent of the priest matters as well. A priest can’t make Holy Communion out of cookies and juice and make up his own words. It can’t be done. Sex also has certain properties that make it licit and make it sacramental in nature–it’s a natural law arguement–that it must be procreative and unitive (by it’s very nature). For sex to be procreative, the act must be done as it was created by God to be. Each act must be objectively procreative (even if, for whatever natural reason the act might not be subjectively procreative because women aren’t fertile 24/7). Contraceptions seeks to STOP any procreative aspect–even if oops-es can happen, it’s NOT about percentages, it’s about altering the act, whether chemically or physically. Abstaining doesn’t change each act. Fertility Awareness (NFP) doesn’t change each act. Contraception, depending on what is used, alters the body, alters/stops the fertility cycle, or is a physical barrier.

 

[tjm190]

You are very frustrating to argue with. First you want us to sum up all of Church thought on the matter and then tell us we must give you references. I and others have done both and yet it’s still not enough for you. When we give references you say they don’t “count” because they are from the Church… to be honest I don’t think you want an answer, you just want to argue and feel you are right and the Church is wrong. Well guess what, the Church has been around a WHOLE lot longer than you and your feeble attempt at telling her she’s wrong.

You’re misinterpreting me. I have challenged the claim that contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore made the claim that arguments stating otherwise are insufficient. I don’t expect you to sum up Church teaching- merely to argue the church’s case. And I merely ask that if you believe there are good arguments from the church, you state them yourself since I’ve been through the materials you have presented. I don’t “feel” that I’m right. I have no emotional involvement in the issue, but analysis has led me to a belief. Some people believe the opposite and by the logical concept on noncontradiction we can infer that someone is wrong, and I believe it would be best if we could attempt to figure out which is which.

God created sex. He said be fruitful and multiply. He gave us the 10 commandments that say not to covet and commit adultery. He gave us sacraments including matrimony. He punished those who sought the pleasure of sex and not the consequences. Scripture tells us that we are to love our spouses as God loves the Church.

I reject none of those claims.

Here’s a way to think about marriage, sacraments and sex. Marriage is a sacrament. Sex is a renewal and physical expression of those vows and therefore sacramental in nature and also must be between a man and woman. Holy Communion is a sacrament. It was instituted by Christ and has certain properties to be valid, ie it must be wheat bread and grape wine and the correct words must be spoken and the intent of the priest matters as well. A priest can’t make Holy Communion out of cookies and juice and make up his own words. It can’t be done. Sex also has certain properties that make it licit and make it sacramental in nature–it’s a natural law arguement–that it must be procreative and unitive (by it’s very nature). For sex to be procreative, the act must be done as it was created by God to be. Each act must be objectively procreative (even if, for whatever natural reason the act might not be subjectively procreative because women aren’t fertile 24/7). Contraceptions seeks to STOP any procreative aspect–even if oops-es can happen, it’s NOT about percentages, it’s about altering the act, whether chemically or physically. Abstaining doesn’t change each act. Fertility Awareness (NFP) doesn’t change each act. Contraception, depending on what is used, alters the body, alters/stops the fertility cycle, or is a physical barrier.

The argument doesn’t hold. If contraceptive sex is said to be comparable to the sacrament of the Eucharist with the bread and wine replaced by cookies and juice and the priests own words, then that would mean contraceptive sex is not be sex anymore than consuming the pseudo body of Christ would be the Eucharist. And I believe we’ve been over the “altering a natural process” argument before (i.e. diet foods alter the natural process of eating)

And if sex is said to be the renewal of the marriage, wouldn’t abstinence be immoral since it fails to renew marriage? Why is the renewal of the marriage through slightly altered means less acceptable then not renewing the marriage at all?

 

[Jennifer_J]

The argument doesn’t hold. If contraceptive sex is said to be comparable to the sacrament of the Eucharist with the bread and wine replaced by cookies and juice and the priests own words, then that would mean contraceptive sex is not be sex anymore than consuming the pseudo body of Christ would be the Eucharist. And I believe we’ve been over the “altering a natural process” argument before (i.e. diet foods alter the natural process of eating)

And if sex is said to be the renewal of the marriage, wouldn’t abstinence be immoral since it fails to renew marriage? Why is the renewal of the marriage through slightly altered means less acceptable then not renewing the marriage at all?

Almost right, Contraceptive sex is no longer SACRAMENTAL in nature. It’s still sex, but it lacks the fullness of meaning and grace that non contraceptive sex has, just like cookies and juice are not sacramental, but you are still eating something. Dieting and diet food doesn’t alter the ACT of eating (eating/drinking something w/no or low calories is as easy as drinking water or eating broccoli), it reduces the calories, certainly but reducing calories is not altering the ACT of eating, but then again, eating is not sacramental (consuming the Eucharist is, obviously)

I’m sure there are cases where abstaining might be immoral (abstaining for no just reason, to get back at a spouse), but no, if both spouses find the need to abstain for just reasons it’s not immoral. There is no Church teaching of WHEN couples have to have relations (other than to consumate the marriage), just that we don’t deny a spouse for no reason and that we don’t alter the act. Because altering the act leads the act not being sacramental. Think of it this way, I don’t have to receive the Eucharist at every Mass–the law is once a year. I get more graces receiving more often, though. But not receiving is not rejecting the sacrament, there are many reasons you might abstain from receiving the Eucharist. It’s not sinful to not receive. It would be wrong to knowingly go to a “mass” where you knew that the “eucharist” was cookies and juice and receive the fake stuff.

There’s a book I think you might find helpful…John Kippley’s Sex and the Marriage Covenant (you can read part of it here:
books.google.com/books?id=m_QYRxg9aC4C&lpg=PA19&ots=XKh7arZdVh&dq=sex%20renewal%20of%20marriage%20covenant&pg=PR16#v=onepage&q=&f=false )
amazon.com/gp/product/0898709733

this would be good to: Why Humanae Vitae was Right: A Reader edited by Janet Smith
amazon.com/gp/product/0898704332

Here’s a similar article by Father Frank Pavone
priestsforlife.org/articles/famplandil.html

 

[dcs6f4]

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…)

Fair enough, however, in that argument against murder you may feel you have made an argument against abortion (for example). However, some people don’t feel abortion is murder so this argument doesn’t work for them… Yet, in many people’s opinion it works just fine.

So you ask us to explain how condom use, contraception, etc. does not allow complete self-giving

For example, I say that each sexual act must result in a complete giving of self, if it does not it is intrinsically evil (do you agree?). If you agree, then I feel I have made an argument against condom use. However, you still think that complete self-giving is possible while using condoms.

Naturally, if I want to continue supporting my point I have to show you why I think each specific method of contraception goes against a compete giving of self.

So we come to your next comment…

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.

So the reason you think condom use is ‘OK’ is because you feel that complete giving of oneself does not go as far as into the physical nature as the man giving gametes (which are a part of himself) to the woman (accurate assumption?). However, I would disagree and say that this form of physical giving is still a part of the unitive aspect of love. I believe the Catholic Church agrees with my stance and this is why the Church teaches that condom use is immoral.

So to ask Catholics, especially as a fellow Catholic, why condom use is wrong you cannot blame us for assuming that you felt self giving is spiritual, emotional, AND physical.

If you want to take the conversation in that direction I think it would be much more fruitful.

Pax

-Dave

 

[tjm190]

Fair enough, however, in that argument against murder you may feel you have made an argument against abortion (for example). However, some people don’t feel abortion is murder so this argument doesn’t work for them… Yet, in many people’s opinion it works just fine.

So you ask us to explain how condom use, contraception, etc. does not allow complete self-giving

Well for the abortion thing, you generally only have to argue that abortion is murder- people already accept murder to be wrong. I do not deny that the pill, condoms, surgical means, or anything else really constitutes contraception, so if contraception is intrinsically evil then it should be possible to argue against contraception as a whole.

For example, I say that each sexual act must result in a complete giving of self, if it does not it is intrinsically evil (do you agree?). If you agree, then I feel I have made an argument against condom use. However, you still think that complete self-giving is possible while using condoms.

I’d be skeptical there- I don’t attach such moral imperatives to sex. But for the sake of argument only, I’ll accept the claim.

Naturally, if I want to continue supporting my point I have to show you why I think each specific method of contraception goes against a compete giving of self.

Very nice work there.

So we come to your next comment…

So the reason you think condom use is ‘OK’ is because you do not feel that complete giving of oneself does not go as far as into the physical nature as the man giving gametes (which are a part of himself) to the woman. However, I would disagree and say that this form of physical giving is still a part of the unitive aspect of love. I believe the Catholic Church agrees with my stance and this is why they teach that condom use is immoral.

So to ask Catholics, especially as a fellow Catholic, why condom use is wrong you cannot blame them for assuming that you felt self giving is spiritual, emotional, AND physical.

Pax

First of all I’m not sure the gametes qualify as a part of the person since I’ve never heard other bodily fluid such as blood or stomach acid been referred to as such- but the semantics are unimportant.
I would question, as I have, that complete physical unity does not create a bond as emotional and spiritual unity do, with the exception of a child as a physical bond. Which brings us back to the discussion about whether or not it’s sinful to reduce the probability of a child’s birth when a child may not be able to be properly cared for.

 

[dcs6f4]

Well for the abortion thing, you generally only have to argue that abortion is murder- people already accept murder to be wrong. I do not deny that the pill, condoms, surgical means, or anything else really constitutes contraception, so if contraception is intrinsically evil then it should be possible to argue against contraception as a whole.

I suppose my comparison is not perfect. But the argument I have presented about complete physical giving is still a general argument against contraception.

I’d be skeptical there- I don’t attach such moral imperatives to sex. But for the sake of argument only, I’ll accept the claim.

Well this topic has to be addressed separately, but again for the sake of argument I’ll continue

First of all I’m not sure the gametes qualify as a part of the person since I’ve never heard other bodily fluid such as blood or stomach acid been referred to as such- but the semantics are unimportant.
I would question, as I have, that complete physical unity does not create a bond as emotional and spiritual unity do, with the exception of a child as a physical bond. Which brings us back to the discussion about whether or not it’s sinful to reduce the probability of a child’s birth when a child may not be able to be properly cared for.

Forgive me for being a little picky, but… stomach acid is not a living thing. All parts of a fluid are not living things in and of themselves. However, yes a blood cell is part of me, but the plasma (while necessary for life) is not, and a lymphocyte is a living part of me, the gastric cells which create HCl in my stomach are parts of me. The natural purpose of the fluid that contains the gametes is to be given. It is a part of me and it only fulfills its right purpose when properly used.

I agree with you that it seems physical unity does not create as strong a bond as emotional or spiritual unity. However, this does not mean it creates no unity at all. I think it is very possible for two people who use contraception to be very close to one another and each time they have sex it helps their unity grow… (I don’t think it is as likely, but I still think it happens frequently). However, I believe the means by which this unity is achieved is not complete, and in this case therefore, not proper.

So I think any question beyond this will always lead back to whether or not the physical means I speak of are necessary for complete self giving. To answer that one has to explore what is ‘self.’

Going back to this…

I’d be skeptical there- I don’t attach such moral imperatives to sex. But for the sake of argument only, I’ll accept the claim.

Why is it that you don’t think we need to give completely of ourselves during each sexual act?

Peace
Dave

EDIT

I apologize, I have been operating under the assumption that you had said somewhere you were a Catholic… I see it does not have that under your Religion so sorry if this is not the case.

 

[tjm190]

I suppose my comparison is not perfect. But the argument I have presented about complete physical giving is still a general argument against contraception.

Sounds good, I remove my prior objection.

Forgive me for being a little picky, but… stomach acid is not a living thing. All parts of a fluid are not living things in and of themselves. However, yes a blood cell is part of me, but the plasma (while necessary for life) is not, and a lymphocyte is a living part of me, the gastric cells which create HCl in my stomach are parts of me. The natural purpose of the fluid that contains the gametes is to be given. It is a part of me and it only fulfills its right purpose when properly used.

Well I think the “part of me” side of things is hard to determine.

I agree with you that it seems physical unity does not create as strong a bond as emotional or spiritual unity. However, this does not mean it creates no unity at all. I think it is very possible for two people who use contraception to be very close to one another and each time they have sex it helps their unity grow… (I don’t think it is as likely, but I still think it happens frequently). However, I believe the means by which this unity is achieved is not complete, and in this case therefore, not proper.

I actually claimed there is no bond at all, aside from a child of course. A couple that has had sex with or without contraception are not physically bound together. Yes, there is a spiritual and emotional bond- but nothing physical or tangible.

Going back to this…

Why is it that you don’t think we need to give completely of ourselves during each sexual act?

Peace
Dave

I believe that the “giving yourself completely” business lacks a scriptural, logical, or scientific basis and was conjectured by the Church to justify its teachings. Also, even if it is taken to be true, there is certainly more giving of self through contraceptive sex than through abstinence.

 

[newbetx]

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?

It was a question I was asking. Not accusing you of anything.

Some believe that what happened in biblical times does not apply today. So I asked the question.

 

[kage_ar]

Can anyone show me one scripture that supports contraception?

 

[tjm190]

It was a question I was asking. Not accusing you of anything.

Some believe that what happened in biblical times does not apply today. So I asked the question.

I guess you could make that case for some Mosaic/Leviticus stuff- but as far as Jesus was concerned, a universal savior’s message is independent of physical/cultural/temporal landscape.

 

[tjm190]

Can anyone show me one scripture that supports contraception?

…so if the bible doesn’t specifically approve of something, it’s immoral?

 

[dcs6f4]

I actually claimed there is no bond at all, aside from a child of course. A couple that has had sex with or without contraception are not physically bound together. Yes, there is a spiritual and emotional bond- but nothing physical or tangible.

Sorry if this seems a little slow on my part. I want to make sure I have your claim correct in my head. You say there is NO physical unity whatsoever created during sex?

I believe that the “giving yourself completely” business lacks a scriptural, logical, or scientific basis and was conjectured by the Church to justify its teachings.

The scriptural basis in short can be summed up by Jn 15:12 - “Love one another as I have loved you”

Christ gave completely of himself and “He loved them to the last.” Jn 13:1

In the vocation of the Sacramental Life of Marriage we should strive to live as Christ did in a complete giving of self… physical and spiritual.

Also, even if it is taken to be true, there is certainly more giving of self through contraceptive sex than through abstinence.

In my opinion, this really only holds true from your current point of view. So to me, that statement is inaccurate.

Peace
Dave

 

[tjm190]

Sorry if this seems a little slow on my part. I want to make sure I have your claim correct in my head. You say there is NO physical unity whatsoever created during sex?

I would say that, given that unity always results in a bond

The scriptural basis in short can be summed up by Jn 15:12 - “Love one another as I have loved you”

Christ gave completely of himself and “He loved them to the last.” Jn 13:1

In the vocation of the Sacramental Life of Marriage we should strive to live as Christ did in a complete giving of self… physical and spiritual.

I don’t have to tell you none of those passages pertain to sexual relations

In my opinion, this really only holds true from your current point of view. So to me, that statement is inaccurate.

Peace
Dave

By definition, abstinence is a lack of sex. If sex is a complete giving of self, even when slightly altered, it would be a nearly complete giving of self.

 

[kage_ar]

…so if the bible doesn’t specifically approve of something, it’s immoral?

IF you agree that Christ started the Catholic Church (which you did) and IF you agree that Jesus spoke truth when He made promises about the Church, then, Church teaching in matters of Faith and Morals is true.

The burden of proof rests on those who disagree with Holy Mother Church. Prove she is wrong.

 

[tjm190]

IF you agree that Christ started the Catholic Church (which you did) and IF you agree that Jesus spoke truth when He made promises about the Church, then, Church teaching in matters of Faith and Morals is true.

The burden of proof rests on those who disagree with Holy Mother Church. Prove she is wrong.

I do not believe any body made up of human beings can said to be free from error. Sorry to ruin your plan.

 

[kage_ar]

I do not believe any body made up of human beings can said to be free from error. Sorry to ruin your plan.

So, you do NOT believe Christ spoke the truth? Christ said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. Christ gave Peter the power to bind and lose.

It cannot be both ways, either Christ told the truth or he lied.

Either the Church is true or it is a lie.

I’ve asked, which do you believe?

 

[tjm190]

So, you do NOT believe Christ spoke the truth? Christ said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. Christ gave Peter the power to bind and lose.

It cannot be both ways, either Christ told the truth or he lied.

Either the Church is true or it is a lie.

I’ve asked, which do you believe?

Please site the Gospel where Jesus says definitively that Church will be completely protected from any error on matters of faith and morals. And then, since such a bold statement would not be excluded from any of the other gospel writers accounts, find at least one other gospel in which a similar statement is made.

And even so, infallibility shouldn’t be something you hide behind. A body that is infallible should have strong arguments and would never need to say “sorry, we’re infallible”

And furthermore, if Christ gave this power to the apostles and the bishops are the successors of the apostles (they are) we would never see Bishops disagreeing with each other.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I do not believe any body made up of human beings can said to be free from error. Sorry to ruin your plan.

Then you reject all that the Church stands for. The Church gave us Scripture and has protected the authentic teachings of Christ via her Popes and the Magesterium. I thought you claimed to be Catholic?

Humans all alone are NOT protected from error. Humans (the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope) guided by the Holy Spirit speaking about faith and morals CAN (and the Church says ARE) free from error.

 

[tjm190]

Then you reject all that the Church stands for. The Church gave us Scripture and has protected the authentic teachings of Christ via her Popes and the Magesterium. I thought you claimed to be Catholic?

Humans all alone are NOT protected from error. Humans (the Pope and Bishops in union with the Pope) guided by the Holy Spirit speaking about faith and morals CAN (and the Church says ARE) free from error.

I claim to be no less Catholic then the priest giving my homily yesterday, in which he questioned this very same stance of the Church, or the community of Bishops that did the same after Humanae Vitae.
If you honestly believe God gave you the ability to reason just so you could put your brain in the “Off” position when it came to morality, then that’s your prerogative.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I claim to be no less Catholic then the priest giving my homily yesterday, in which he questioned this very same stance of the Church, or the community of Bishops that did the same after Humanae Vitae.
If you honestly believe God gave you the ability to reason just so you could put your brain in the “Off” position when it came to morality, then that’s your prerogative.

Nice…my brain is far from the off position. You, my friend are a rude YOUNG man.

You and your priest, then, reject clear teachings of the Church. It’s not unheard of. A priest, all alone, makes mistakes. He is not infallible. The laity, all alone, make mistakes. Not all of the Bishops rejected Humanae Vitae–much less the “community” of the Bishops. They were not in union with clear teachings of the Church, which had exhisted since Genesis. All Humanae Vitae did was restate the obvious.