Contraception outside marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter d12pet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

d12pet

Guest
hi to all,

I am new here. I purposedly joined this forum to solicit comments from qualified persons regarding the issue on the morality of using contraceptives outside marriage.

I have read these articles
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/reconciling-concept-of-intrinsic-evil.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/11/moral-exemptions-in-contraceptive-use.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-contraception-necessary-outside.html

and got confused. I find the author’s reasoning quite reasonable, but I am just not confident of their correctness.

Hope someone here can give critical explanations… Thanks!
 
d12pet said:
hi to all,

I am new here. I purposedly joined this forum to solicit comments from qualified persons regarding the issue on the morality of using contraceptives outside marriage.

I have read these articles
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/reconciling-concept-of-intrinsic-evil.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/11/moral-exemptions-in-contraceptive-use.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-contraception-necessary-outside.html

and got confused. I find the author’s reasoning quite reasonable, but I am just not confident of their correctness.

Hope someone here can give critical explanations… Thanks!
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF! 👋

I didn’t read through those blog posts yet, but it would be helpful to know going into them exactly what part is confusing and/or potentially incorrect.
 
I just took a glance at some of the links and I gather that they are written in response to the media hoopla about the comment on condoms in the new book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI.

The Vatican’s Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a clarifying statement about this just before Christmas:

Note on the banalization of sexuality: Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World"

Perhaps that may shed some light on the whole thing for you. In any case, it should at least give you a measuring stick by which to assess the correctness of those blog posts.
 
d12pet said:
hi to all,

I am new here. I purposedly joined this forum to solicit comments from qualified persons regarding the issue on the morality of using contraceptives outside marriage.

I have read these articles
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/12/reconciling-concept-of-intrinsic-evil.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/11/moral-exemptions-in-contraceptive-use.html
catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-contraception-necessary-outside.html

and got confused. I find the author’s reasoning quite reasonable, but I am just not confident of their correctness.

Hope someone here can give critical explanations… Thanks!
Click to expand...
Artifical Birth Control, whether inside or outside marriage, has always been and always will be forbidden. There is no change in Church teaching on this.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I just took a glance at some of the links and I gather that they are written in response to the media hoopla about the comment on condoms in the new book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI.

The Vatican’s Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a clarifying statement about this just before Christmas:

Note on the banalization of sexuality: Regarding certain interpretations of "Light of the World"

Perhaps that may shed some light on the whole thing for you. In any case, it should at least give you a measuring stick by which to assess the correctness of those blog posts.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read the clarification already and some comments around the net regarding it. But, most that I can see is that the clarification still needs clarification. The first link ehich I posted in my post above in fact was an article written by the author after the clarification was published. The author used the clarification as one of the reference.

Personally, I find the clarification not very helpful.
 
d12pet said:
Yes, I have read the clarification already and some comments around the net regarding it. But, most that I can see is that the clarification still needs clarification. The first link ehich I posted in my post above in fact was an article written by the author after the clarification was published. The author used the clarification as one of the reference.

Personally, I find the clarification not very helpful.
Click to expand...
Church teaching is that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. However, if, in some morally bankrupt situation, someone used a condom to stop the partner in the morally bankrupt act from contracting a life threatening disease, that would be a tiny light in the darkness and could, perhaps, signify a dawn of some basic morality into an otherwise dark life.

In other words, thank God for small mercies! Does that make it any clearer? 🙂
 
thistle said:
Artifical Birth Control, whether inside or outside marriage, has always been and always will be forbidden. There is no change in Church teaching on this.
Click to expand...
The author said the same. He is saying that when the Pope is saying that condoms outside marriage is justifiable, it is not a new teaching nor a change in teaching because, as he said, the traditional teaching is that contraception is wrong only within marriage.

The main claim is that contraception is moral outside marriage because if one is determined to engage in illicit sex, one at least assume other responsibilities like not infecting onself or others and not concieving a child out of wedlock.

Honestly, i find the reason sensible, but I am just not sure if they are a faithful interpretation of the traditional teaching or whether there are magisterial documents supporting the claim.
 
d12pet said:
The author said the same. He is saying that when the Pope is saying that condoms outside marriage is justifiable, it is not a new teaching nor a change in teaching because, as he said, the traditional teaching is that contraception is wrong only within marriage.

The main claim is that contraception is moral outside marriage because if one is determined to engage in illicit sex, one at least assume other responsibilities like not infecting onself or others and not concieving a child out of wedlock.

Honestly, i find the reason sensible, but I am just not sure if they are a faithful interpretation of the traditional teaching or whether there are magisterial documents supporting the claim.
Click to expand...
If you’re engaged in sex with a male prostitute (the example in the book) you are already engaged in an act way beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable, so why would it matter whether or not you wore a condom? Only if, by doing so, you somehow protected the person you were having sex with.
 
FightingFat said:
Church teaching is that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. However, if, in some morally bankrupt situation, someone used a condom to stop the partner in the morally bankrupt act from contracting a life threatening disease, that would be a tiny light in the darkness and could, perhaps, signify a dawn of some basic morality into an otherwise dark life.

In other words, thank God for small mercies! Does that make it any clearer? 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes I have read this from Steven Long’s article because he commented on one of the author’s post. But from the comments page og Long, the common reply to him is that what is the basis of this change of mind or awareness of responsibility. Long said that the little awareness of moral responsibility was on the epestimic order. Other reply to him that the basis of this moral awareness in the epestimic order is the ontological order which is the use of condoms.

What if the other partner refuse to use condoms. Is he doing a bad act is he refuses to use condom? If it is bad, then would that mean that if he use condoms, it’s a good act? Is it good because he is responding to that little light (moral responsibility) of not risking others life which he became aware of thanks to God’s mercy?
 
d12pet said:
Yes I have read this from Steven Long’s article because he commented on one of the author’s post. But from the comments page og Long, the common reply to him is that what is the basis of this change of mind or awareness of responsibility. Long said that the little awareness of moral responsibility was on the epestimic order. Other reply to him that the basis of this moral awareness in the epestimic order is the ontological order which is the use of condoms.

What if the other partner refuse to use condoms. Is he doing a bad act is he refuses to use condom? If it is bad, then would that mean that if he use condoms, it’s a good act? Is it good because he is responding to that little light (moral responsibility) of not risking others life which he became aware of thanks to God’s mercy?
Click to expand...
It’s all nasty, but it’s a move towards the light. I’m afraid my understanding of moral theology does not stretch to epistemic and ontological orders, but from my philosophy training I do understand the terms. Epistemic- is the action good because you do it knowingly? Maybe. Ontologicaly- is it good in what it is, in its being? No, clearly it’s not, but it is demonstrating a degree of care towards someone else, a degree of concern for the potential suffering of a another human being as a consequence of one’s actions, and as such, constitutes a move towards the light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top