Contraception Questions for a Newly Converted Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdakers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tdakers

Guest
I have a question on why the Church says that Contraception to include coitus interruptus to be a mortal sin. One instance the Church pulls from is Gen 38:8-10 for coitus interruptus, but this has a clear link to the fact that Onan did not full fill his Traditional Law of carrying on the Widow’s son. The argument can be made that there are other examples in the Bible of coitus interruptus where they were not killed. There are also examples in the Bible were people lied, but were not killed. It also seems that the Church is deeply divided on the opinion of contraception such as the Canadian bishops who wrote against the rejection of contraception. It also seems that before it was proclaimed in 1968 that contraception was a sin that the council of birth control overwhelmingly encouraged the Church to rethink its position on contraception. The Pope simply decided to go with the marginal minority. How can the Church be so deeply divided over something that should be so clear? The Church has already shown that it is able to change its position as new advancements in science and understanding come to light such as the rejection of Galileo and his theory that the sun orbits the earth. To deem something a mortal sin without clear direction from the Bible seems like it would be a bold statement.

Homosexuality is not open to life in even the slightest as 2 members of the same sex are incapable of creating a human life. With contraception there is always a chance that someone will get pregnant. Condoms, the pill, and diaphragms are very effective but also not 100%. Coitus interruptus is also only 78% effective due to the nature of the act. Thus contraception between to married people can still open to life if it occurs but simply use modern drugs and medicine to more directly control the timing of children. The argument of things such as the pill also do not seem to account for things such as life saving drugs and medicine that help the sick and the dying. If it is someones time to die to you believe that God will allow them to continue living even with the most advanced medicine? If God determines that someone is going to have a baby do you believe that any man made method of preventing a pregnancy at the time will stop God, of course not.

Finally I have read that the church teaches that contraception encourages people to more easily cheat on their spouse due to the reduced risk of conceiving a child. To me this seems like a straw man’s argument in the sense that the Bible very clearly states that sex is for a married man and a married women for the rest of their lives. It also clearly states that adultery is wrong. For the Church to say we are going to take it a step further and say that something that isn’t in the Bible to be a mortal sin in the hopes of preventing other mortal sins that are clearly spelled out in the Bible is another form of over reaching. Sin is apart of being a human and it is up to the individual to do their best to uphold the teaching of the Bible and if they directly go against the teaching of the Bible they should face the consequences of either confession or rejection of the teachings of the Bible.
 
tdakers said:
Condoms, the pill, and diaphragms are very effective but also not 100%. Coitus interruptus is also only 78% effective due to the nature of the act
Click to expand...
It’s not about the success rate.

It’s about wilfully separating the procreative nature of sex from the act itself. An imperfect analogy would be how purging after eating is still unnatural even though you retain some calories. The issue is about separating an aspect of an act.

Nfp is allowed even though the success rate is pretty high, because you’re not separating procreation from sex, you’re just abstaining during fertile windows. Also, infertile couples with 0% of pregnancy (eg no uterus) can still have sex because they’re not actively avoiding procreation while having sex
 
Last edited:
tdakers said:
…
Click to expand...
The intention is incorrect. This is withholding from the spouse and not in accord with the marital consent to grant the conjugal act.

Allocution to Midwifes, why Natural Family Planning may be acceptable:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
Click to expand...
 
“Coitus interruptus” is unnecessary and unreliable. Church approved techniques, NFP, for spacing of children are more effective than coitus interruptus. To willingly thwart the procreation ends of sex is immoral.

Your logic that “If God determines that someone is going to have a baby do you believe that any man made method of preventing a pregnancy at the time will stop God, of course not.” is flawed. God determines many women will have children everyday, yet they never do because they are killed during abortions.
 
Catholics often speak as if God wills, or intervenes, in biological processes to create each life at the moment of conception. I am not aware of any actual teaching to this effect. Thus the argument that God could cause conception anyway, despite the use of contraception, and that the Church teaching is therefore unnecessary can’t be a valid argument. It might, I think, be more powerful against the Mormon view of things, but they believe in pre-existent souls, and Catholics don’t.

Having said that I think the argument that no form of contraception is 100% effective and therefore all sexual acts using contraception are ‘open to life’ is novel. I have not heard that before and on the face of it it is a strong argument especially given that the reliability of ‘artificial’ contraception is regular Catholic talking point. I await an argument against it. I won’t be impressed with the one that immediately springs to mind ‘intent’ because couples using ‘natural family planning’ have the same ‘intent’ at least as to their end.
 
Last edited:
tdakers said:
One instance the Church pulls from is Gen 38:8-10 for coitus interruptus, but this has a clear link to the fact that Onan did not full fill his Traditional Law of carrying on the Widow’s son. The argument can be made that there are other examples in the Bible of coitus interruptus where they were not killed.
Click to expand...
The story of Onan seems to point out not that coitus interruptus itself, per se, is what’s wrong, but that there’s a larger issue at stake. Onan was taking advantage of his widowed sister-in-law, using her for his sexual pleasure, while all along denying (her) the benefits of bearing a child. I would suggest that the moral of the story is that sex merely for pleasure – which objectifies and devalues one’s partner – is what is sinful.
tdakers said:
It also seems that the Church is deeply divided on the opinion of contraception such as the Canadian bishops who wrote against the rejection of contraception.
Click to expand...
You’re talking about the Winnipeg Statement? It wasn’t a document ‘against’ Humanae vitae at all! Rather, it was directed toward priest confessors who were looking for guidance on how to react in the confessional toward those who were confessing that they were using contraception. The question was whether they might offer absolution, or were required to refuse it. The answer given was based on a discussion of conscience. (Essentially, it was a refutation of the ‘primacy of conscience’ pseudo-doctrine: namely, that one who follows one’s conscience can, nevertheless, be mistaken in what their conscience tells them… but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be forgiven!)
tdakers said:
The Church has already shown that it is able to change its position as new advancements in science
Click to expand...
Contraception isn’t a “new advancement in science”, but rather, simply an improvement in a process that’s been around for millennia! And, all during that time, the Church has continued to express its opposition to contraception. Humanae vitae wasn’t a response to change in science; it was a response to change in societal opinion, and it met that with continuity of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
I do not mean this in any offensive way but these are things you should have learned and accepted in your RCIA program prior to becoming Catholic. We went through the Theology of the Body during RCIA and it was stressed that the acceptance of the Church’s teachings on contraception is required prior to becoming Catholic. When you take communion you are not only consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, but you are affirming you accept all teachings of our Holy Church including the teachings that all contraceptions are morally wrong and sinful.
 
I guess I just don’t see anywhere in the Bible that said that would be a mortal sin, and for the Church to determine it is despite lack of evidence, new discoveries in science, and against the advice of whole committees devoted to determine just that.
 
Last edited:
I would also say though that reason and choice is a gift from God. The choice of if you would like a child at the present time. Just because you do not wish to capitalize on having a child at the time does not deny God his gifts if he wants you to have a baby he will you can’t stop it. I guess I struggle with if I don’t want to have a kid but enjoy Gods gift of a sexual relationship with my wife I’m going to hell? And I know ther are one off cases but I’m not interested in those being a healthy married man
 
I don’t take offense to that at all, I did take the course when I was not a catholic for our marriage, however, I was still prodestant and when I took the class most of the people in the class just thought it was an outdated joke. I would say even now most people I talk to view it as an outdated practice. I’m trying to get and understanding of the intent as it doesn’t make any sense to me how the Church could deem it a mortal sin and I have to accept it as a morta sin simply because the Pope said so without any Biblical backing or support for his committees
 
How so? I know what it is but why did the church determine that that is ok and others aren’t? Also that wasn’t even accepted until relatively recently. Why is that now ok but scienticfic birth control aren’t? Seems like a stretch to make it a mortal sin when NFP is acceptable which is the exact same as Birth Control without a bill
 
Last edited:
tdakers said:
I guess I just don’t see anywhere in the Bible that said that would be a mortal sin, and for the Church to determine it is despite lack of evidence, new discoveries in science, and against the advice of whole committees devoted to determine just that.
Click to expand...
It’s been the majority position for 2,000 years, and our faith is Apostolic not Bible-only.
 
tdakers said:
How so? I know what it is but why did the church determine that that is ok and others aren’t? Also that wasn’t even accepted until relatively recently.
Click to expand...
There were stricter, more stoic applications of it which St. Jerome and St. Augustine of Hippo supported, and positions like St. John Chrysostom which are very well in line with the Church’s current teaching. The use of artifical birth control has always been condemned and general ordering to openness to life always stressed.
 
tdakers said:
I guess I just don’t see anywhere in the Bible that said that would be a mortal sin, and for the Church to determine it is despite lack of evidence, new discoveries in science, and against the advice of whole committees devoted to determine just that.
Click to expand...
Christ gave the Church authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. That means all Church doctrine is backed by the authority of God given to the Church.
To reject a Church teaching is to reject God.
 
tdakers said:
Contraception to include coitus interruptus to be a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
No, the Church teaches that contraception is a grave sin. It would be mortal if done with knowledge and consent.
tdakers said:
With contraception there is always a chance that someone will get pregnant.
Click to expand...
Contraception’s effectiveness has nothing to do with the nature of the sin.

Contraception distorts the marital act from the way God created it.
tdakers said:
Thus contraception between to married people can still open to life
Click to expand...
This is why the Church teaches with the clearer words. Each act must be ordered to procreation.

“Open to life” is a fluffy term that is often misinterpreted.
tdakers said:
Finally I have read that the church teaches that contraception encourages people to more easily cheat on their spouse due to the reduced risk of conceiving a child.
Click to expand...
Where have you read this? The Catechism paragraph?
 
I feel like that is simply splitting hairs at that point. I use pills to help with a fever something foreign to fight something God made. A contraception is a contraception and even man made contraception are known to fail and not be effective in the same way as the NFP only difference is that it is more scientific and reliable
 
I understand that which is the only reason I’m open to it regardless of the rationality but it would be nice to come to an understanding not just do it because we told you to
 
Neither does the pill it makes it harder for the sperm to reach the eggs due to the increase in mucas, additionally using cortus interuptis there is no life to begin with. Again it seems like splitting hairs that some drugs are fine and other aren’t. I would not argue for things such as the morning after pill, but to prevent pregnancy to begin with.
 
You are correct that people then willing choose to murder a human being which is completely different than using a different form of contraception which is still open to life, but not the murder of children. That is something completely different than contraception
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top