Contraception reconsiderd?

[HabemusFrancis]

Hello everyone, been a while.

I am sort of a “rediscovering” Catholic, having taken a hiatus from my faith for a year or so.

While I agree with the Churche’s teaching on artificial contraception ( immoral, selfish, not open to gods plan for life etc) I do wonder if it sometimes doesn’t do some good. For example, contraception does stop selfish, irresponsible, immature people from producing children. This is my main point.

I think it is really underestimated and under appreciated what harm is done from people having sex out of wedlock and producing children. Such children are far more likely to suffer from poverty, sexual+ physical abuse, and a general bad outcome on life than ones born in marriage. I have read that a child born to a married couple already has far more advantages than say a child born to a girl who got pregnant at age 16.

I personally believe the legion of hardships that plague the African American community would be much decreased if marriage were the norm in the inner cities of Chicago or Detroit. Instead in the black inner cities ( and elsewhere) what happens often is ignorant teenagers and 20 year olds, perhaps influenced by sexualized culture have sex without thinking of consequences, then end up having children who they are perhaps either unwilling or incapable to take care of properly. Often in poor, out of wedlock families, the father is nowhere to be seen, which I believe can influence violent behavior in the sons and promiscuity in the daughters. I could go on and on.

I know it is an UnCatholic opinion I have, that puts me at odds with the Church, but I feel I cannot help but have it. That is, if people (especially young people) are going to be selfish and and immoral when it comes for sex, than for goodness sake, take all the precautions you can to not have children! It quite frankly isn’t fair.

I know of course, it is best if they just be good Christians, and not have sex at all. That is a nice opinion to have, one that I agree with, but I do believe it is unreasonable to expect that behavior will occur to many people, and that many people will not be dismissive of such an attitude. I think that ultimately if people are going to have sex outside of marriage, it is better if they use contraception, than if they produce a child they are incapable of parenting kindly or responsibly.

I keep thinking of Adrian Peterson, the Vikings quarterback. He has 7 children by 7 different women, ( that we know of.) I do hate to be harsh, but Im sure almost all of them were just women he lusted for and had sex with without thinking of the consequences. It would be better I believe for him to have used contraception when he did that. He definitely is not parenting material. We know that he beat one of his kids raw with a switch ( 4 year old boy covered in scars. Im sure anything a 4 year old would have done, would deserve a spanking or face smack at the very most.) One of his children was killed by the baby mamma’s boyfriend, and he is accused of beating another.

I do not believe his children have great outcomes in life, and don’t believe he has ambitions to be a serious parent.

Ok he’s just an example of the dangers of promiscuous non contraceptive sex? What do you think of my proposition? Crazy? Reasonable? Sort of smart, but flirting with sinful thinking? Id love to know.

 

[JRKH]

Yours is a common argument but I must admit it is one that I have never understood.

Consider:

1. The Church teaches that contraception is immoral.
2. The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

If one chooses to disregard #2 above, why would they choose to respect and apply #1?

You rather point to this issue in your post where you say…
" That is, if people … are going to be selfish and and immoral when it comes (to) sex, than for goodness sake, take all the precautions you can to not have children!" (Bolding mine)
So the question becomes if they are going to be immoral about sex…why would they try to be moral about contraception?

Like I said, I’ve heard this argument a number of times before but to me the underpinnings of this argument just do not make sense.

What do you think?

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

1. The Church teaches that contraception is immoral.
2. The Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

If one chooses to disregard #2 above, why would they choose to respect and apply #1?

+1, except that I would reverse the order of 1) and 2).

If 2 people are going to act impulsively and lustfully, there is no reason why they would use restraint in using contraception.

There is also the matter that contraception has a failure rate, which leads to abortion, which is a far greater sin because it is also a sin against life. For this reason, the Church can never approve the use of contraception.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

+1, except that I would reverse the order of 1) and 2).

If 2 people are going to act impulsively and lustfully, there is no reason why they would use restraint in using contraception.

**There is also the matter that contraception has a failure rate, which leads to abortion, which is a far greater sin because it is also a sin against life. **For this reason, the Church can never approve the use of contraception.

ICXC NIKA.

I have been arguing the case for contraception elsewhere, but I’m not going to grand stand on that issue here.

However do you have grounds to assert that contraception failure leads to abortion? There are any number of parents with “surprises”, who have accepted that the contraceptive failure led to conception and who kept the child anyway.

If the following link is correct, about half of the women who have abortions used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant. Nearly as many again **did not use **contraception during that month.

I’m also curious as to how many of the 54% of those who did use contraception used it -

1. Consistently - It’s one thing to say a woman used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. But if that meant her partner used a condom once during the month, but didn’t bother the other nine times, then it still fulfils the criteria of having used a contraceptive during the month.
   .
2. In the case of the pill, had at least one month of consistent use beforehand so the regulating system had time to take place.

infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

Contraceptive Use

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control; non-use is greatest among those who are young, unmarried, poor, black, Hispanic, or poorly educated.

46% of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex

The church’s ban on the pill and contraceptives hasn’t made one iota of difference to society’s use of the pill or any other contraceptive device.

Abortion is something else again.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Im not talking about the Church changing her teaching as much as just promoting it as a matter of policy… Idk… Idk about the method, I just believe that irresponsible people having kids out of wedlock is an enormous problem ( mostly to the kids and society and general) and wonder about what can be done to lessen that

 

[GEddie]

The church’s ban on the pill and contraceptives hasn’t made one iota of difference to society’s use of the pill or any other contraceptive device.
E
Abortion is something else again.

Well, no, in a non-Catholic country, most folks don’t particularly care what the Church says.

And while abortion is another issue, and not every abortion seeker has used contraception, historically the acceptance of contraception has led to acceptance of abortion.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JRKH]

Im not talking about the Church changing her teaching as much as just promoting it as a matter of policy… Idk… Idk about the method, I just believe that irresponsible people having kids out of wedlock is an enormous problem ( mostly to the kids and society and general) and wonder about what can be done to lessen that

Fair enough.

But…and I am not picking on you but on the argument in general…

Why is there the tendency to pick on “Contraception” as the culprit. If one wants something to “promote…as a matter of policy” then let’s be promoting chastity. If one is chaste…one does not need contraception.

The bottom line remains the same…If a person chooses to ignore one Church teaching why would one think that they would feel bound by another Church teaching?

No - - I think that the answer lies elsewhere…

Peace
James

 

[edwest2]

Hello everyone, been a while.

I am sort of a “rediscovering” Catholic, having taken a hiatus from my faith for a year or so.

While I agree with the Churche’s teaching on artificial contraception ( immoral, selfish, not open to gods plan for life etc) I do wonder if it sometimes doesn’t do some good. For example, contraception does stop selfish, irresponsible, immature people from producing children. This is my main point.

I think it is really underestimated and under appreciated what harm is done from people having sex out of wedlock and producing children. Such children are far more likely to suffer from poverty, sexual+ physical abuse, and a general bad outcome on life than ones born in marriage. I have read that a child born to a married couple already has far more advantages than say a child born to a girl who got pregnant at age 16.

I personally believe the legion of hardships that plague the African American community would be much decreased if marriage were the norm in the inner cities of Chicago or Detroit. Instead in the black inner cities ( and elsewhere) what happens often is ignorant teenagers and 20 year olds, perhaps influenced by sexualized culture have sex without thinking of consequences, then end up having children who they are perhaps either unwilling or incapable to take care of properly. Often in poor, out of wedlock families, the father is nowhere to be seen, which I believe can influence violent behavior in the sons and promiscuity in the daughters. I could go on and on.

I know it is an UnCatholic opinion I have, that puts me at odds with the Church, but I feel I cannot help but have it. That is, if people (especially young people) are going to be selfish and and immoral when it comes for sex, than for goodness sake, take all the precautions you can to not have children! It quite frankly isn’t fair.

I know of course, it is best if they just be good Christians, and not have sex at all. That is a nice opinion to have, one that I agree with, but I do believe it is unreasonable to expect that behavior will occur to many people, and that many people will not be dismissive of such an attitude. I think that ultimately if people are going to have sex outside of marriage, it is better if they use contraception, than if they produce a child they are incapable of parenting kindly or responsibly.

Ok he’s just an example of the dangers of promiscuous non contraceptive sex? What do you think of my proposition? Crazy? Reasonable? Sort of smart, but flirting with sinful thinking? Id love to know.

It’s a bit more complicated. Detroit is a good example since I lived there since the mid-1950s till 2003, but continued to visit until recently.

Like Catholics, the family was very important and Christian beliefs were very important in the daily lives of black people. Unskilled work was easier to find for black and white. My father was an unskilled immigrant. The Projects, as they were called, were created to provide affordable housing for low income black people. The late 1960s brought an underground influence that meant sex without love was preached to everyone. Go on The Pill, use condoms - the Church, any Church, can’t tell you what to do. Just as in the white community, black people were victimized by those promoting illegal drug use. Moving into the 1980s, No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep of the country. Unskilled jobs were getting harder to find. Fathers were having a harder time supporting their families and it was more likely for both blacks and whites, that both the mother and father had to work to pay the bills. So, Day Care, or just give a house key to one of the kids.

And what were the prospects for poor children and teens? Sell dope, join the military or become criminals. In Detroit, in the early 2000s, most black people that could move out, began to move out. Detroit’s population dropped below a million. Sometimes, a poor, young black teenager looking for love could not find a stable boyfriend but she could have a baby she could love and her mom or aunt or grandmother could look after the baby while she tried to find work.

Rap music (whatever its actual roots) was preaching women as sex objects, young blacks shot and killed other young blacks for their $100 shoes or a gold chain if they wouldn’t give it up. Drive-by shootings in Detroit? Carjackings? As one black minister put it: ‘young black men are dying over meaningless status symbols.’

Young black women were and are looking for love, for real relationships, not loneliness and isolation with few prospects for a better future. As a black friend of mine, and former gang member, told me: “Those days are loong gone.” Those days when black men took responsibility for the children they brought into this world. Comedian Bill Cosby lived a life of family and community like I did and he’s trying to reach young black men and the black community in general. I have his book:

amazon.com/Come-People-Path-Victims-Victors/dp/B003GAMZKE

I’ve heard him on TV. No, not all black people are following a world filled with ‘get lots of sex’ messages. I saw a billboard in Detroit with a photo of young black men and women promoting chastity in connection with their Church. I also saw a billboard that showed a young black woman filling out some papers at a desk. The caption was: “Do It Yourself Divorce.” There was a number to call.

So, contraception is not the answer. Desperate, lonely and misguided young people will do certain things to fill the void.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CrossofChrist]

Think about it though…

“We aren’t promoting your activity, and we find it appalling. But in any case, here are all the contraceptives you could possibly ask for…”

Seems a bit incongruous, no?

The Church ought to promote chastity, not immoral behavior. That’s ultimately what is being done, promoting immorality albeit a little indirectly, if the Church sided with contraception access.

 

[Cimachol]

A comment of Pope Emeritus Benedict XIV on condoms come to mind, although I’m slightly reluctant to bring it up, given how badly his words were twisted.

The Holy Father noted in an interview that “there may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.”

He added that the use of condoms in such a case is not “real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

His words were unfortunately badly twisted by some in the media, who claimed in headlines that the pope had said that condom use was “OK” in some cases.

What he was saying was that at least the person in that case would be acknowledging that he needs to control his behavior in some way and reduce the risk of infection. He wasn’t saying that using condoms is sometimes OK anymore than he was saying that male prostitution is sometimes OK.

I suppose I would rather that a person who is going to have sex outside of marriage use non-abortifacient contraception than have sex and not use anything, but neither choice is moral or OK. We shouldn’t be aspiring to be “less bad,” but to be good, and neither of those actions is good.

 

[Cimachol]

To my above comment, I want to add that the Holy Father was also considering where a person was coming from and what he was moving toward. A person who is already having sex with people outside of marriage and thinks, “Gee, I should do something to make sure my actions don’t get myself or others sick, or don’t lead to an unwanted pregnancy,” might be moving in a positive direction by starting to use contraception, although as the Holy Father noted, it is only a first step. Hopefully that person will continue on that path, eventually giving up his sinful behavior altogether rather than just trying to mitigate the damage.

The person who is NOT having sex but starts having sex while using contraception is taking a negative step and should be encouraged to remain on the right path, not encouraged to take the less potentially damaging of two grave paths.

 

[Eternal_One]

Fair enough.

But…and I am not picking on you but on the argument in general…

Why is there the tendency to pick on “Contraception” as the culprit. If one wants something to “promote…as a matter of policy” then let’s be promoting chastity. If one is chaste…one does not need contraception.

The bottom line remains the same…If a person chooses to ignore one Church teaching why would one think that they would feel bound by another Church teaching?

No - - I think that the answer lies elsewhere…

Peace
James

You’d be surprised by the level of inconsistency some people display. They might be fornicating, but since contraception is a big No No in the Church, they will follow that teaching because its easy and perhaps convenient, for pleasure’s sake.

Like you said, if theyre not following the rules on Fornication, why are they choosing to follow the rules on Contraception? It doesn’t make sense and it seems that is what the OP is saying too. If a person is going to make a stupid choice, why not at least attempt to lessen the severity of it out of common sense?

 

[Bradski]

Think about it though…

“We aren’t promoting your activity, and we find it appalling. But in any case, here are all the contraceptives you could possibly ask for…”

Seems a bit incongruous, no?

There would be a lot less accidents if everyone kept their cars in perfect working order and obeyed all the road rules. But we know that doesn’t happen.

Saying that you shouldn’t allow contraception because it encourages people to have sex is like saying that you can’t allow cars to be fitted with seat belts, anti skid brakes and air bags becuase it encourages bad driving.

 

[Abu]

Eternal One #12
Like you said, if theyre not following the rules on Fornication, why are they choosing to follow the rules on Contraception? It doesn’t make sense and it seems that is what the OP is saying too. If a person is going to make a stupid choice, why not at least attempt to lessen the severity of it out of common sense?

It is hardly “commonsense”, but common nonsense. Since when do two wrongs make a right? Cimachol has it right.

No it is not “more moral”, but the idea may signify the possibility “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” (Benedict XVI. See Jeff Miller at: tinyurl.com/2774mor)

Phil Lawler:
"Why didn’t he (the Pope) condemn the drive to accept recreational sex, and rely on condoms for safety? Why didn’t he say something like this?:
"This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

“The above paragraph, of course, is exactly what Pope Benedict did say—in the paragraph directly preceding the one that’s caused all the fuss. Find it on page 119 of Light of the World.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=735

 

[JRKH]

You’d be surprised by the level of inconsistency some people display. They might be fornicating, but since contraception is a big No No in the Church, they will follow that teaching because its easy and perhaps convenient, for pleasure’s sake.

Like you said, if they’re not following the rules on Fornication, why are they choosing to follow the rules on Contraception?

I do not think that what you describe above is someone choosing to follow one teaching and not another. Rather they are choosing to forgo contraception for the reason you state…“for pleasure’s sake”. In this they are not being inconsistent at all. They are acting in both cases “for pleasure’s sake”

It doesn’t make sense and it seems that is what the OP is saying too. If a person is going to make a stupid choice, why not at least attempt to lessen the severity of it out of common sense?

They certainly have that option…the Church has not interfered with their freedom by her teaching. However, the choices of individuals was not really what I was trying to address by my earlier post.

I have, on multiple occasions, heard the argument put forward that the Church is somehow irresponsible by its teaching on contraception. Everything from too many babies to the aids epidemic are blamed on it by some people.
Yet, as I have explained - the argument makes makes no sense when looked at in it’s fuller context.

1. Church teaching binds Catholics. So if one is not Catholic (including most governments) they certainly would not feel bound by Catholic Church teaching.
2. The Church teaches chastity. If one lives chastely one has little fear of STDs and none of an unwanted pregnancy.
3. The Church promotes chastity as a proper solution to the epidemic of STDs and of unwanted pregnancies. Yet the world ignores and even scoffs at such a solution in spite of the fact that it is the cheapest and in many ways the easiest way to solve the problem.

No - in my mind the argument that the Church somehow bears responsibility and should amend her teaching on Contraception makes no sense at all.

Peace
James

 

[Eternal_One]

Abu, I am not claiming it is more moral. If people are going to mess up, why mess up all the way when that poor choice can at least be minimized?

Wasn’t it JPII who said that prostitutes using condoms was a step in the right direction, because it shows they are showing some type of concern for their clients? Isnt that point somewhere along the same lines as what the OP is trying to make?

 

[JRKH]

There would be a lot less accidents if everyone kept their cars in perfect working order and obeyed all the road rules. But we know that doesn’t happen.

And yet, the fact that accidents do happen does not negate the wisdom of the highlighted statement.

Saying that you shouldn’t allow contraception because it encourages people to have sex is like saying that you can’t allow cars to be fitted with seat belts, anti skid brakes and air bags because it encourages bad driving.

I don’t know how you came to this conclusion based on what “CrossofChrist” had written…but oh well…
The Church says many things and taken as a whole is quite consistent and good. Why the obsession with contraception while ignoring the teaching on chastity?

You reference cars and the safety equipment on them But associated with that safety equipment is training and a lot of money spent on promoting safe driving habits. Yes the safety equipment is good…If and when an accident occurs. However the greater emphasis and effort is is put into avoiding an accident in the first place. I’m sure you agree that this makes perfect sense. No accident - no problem.

The same thing is true in the matter under discussion here. If one “keeps ones self in good condition (chaste) and follows the rules of the road (Church teaching)” there is very little chance of having an accident.

Peace
James

 

[Cimachol]

There would be a lot less accidents if everyone kept their cars in perfect working order and obeyed all the road rules. But we know that doesn’t happen.

Saying that you shouldn’t allow contraception because it encourages people to have sex is like saying that you can’t allow cars to be fitted with seat belts, anti skid brakes and air bags becuase it encourages bad driving.

That’s a faulty analogy, as wearing a seat belt and having good brakes and airbags does not render an otherwise morally neutral act of driving immoral, while using contraception would make an otherwise moral act of sexual intercourse immoral.

But let’s consider the case of someone who is considering driving immorally, such as someone who is intoxicated. Would you such a person to “just make sure you wear a seat belt,” or would urge that person to avoid driving altogether?

 

[Scottgun]

Abu, I am not claiming it is more moral. If people are going to mess up, why mess up all the way when that poor choice can at least be minimized?

Wasn’t it JPII who said that prostitutes using condoms was a step in the right direction, because it shows they are showing some type of concern for their clients? Isnt that point somewhere along the same lines as what the OP is trying to make?

It was Benedict 16 and he was taken wildly out of context and was not in any way making an exception for condom use. Once one decides to ignore Divine Law (remember, the duty of Chastity isn’t merely Church teaching.) and commit an offense against Chastity, then they are literally on their own (from an eternal perspective, we call it Hell). We cannot justly and rightly advise someone how to mortally sin more safely any more than we can tell someone how to stick one’s hand in a whirring blender more safely.

 

[Bradski]

But let’s consider the case of someone who is considering driving immorally, such as someone who is intoxicated. Would you such a person to “just make sure you wear a seat belt,” or would urge that person to avoid driving altogether?

Just the one beer? Maybe two? Perhaps one for the road? And you’re young. Impetuous. Nothing bad is going to happen. Lots of testosterone. You don’t have to be drunk to do something that you might regret later. So it’s best to ensure that that protection is there.

Am I talking about driving or contraception? Doesn’t really matter. The principle is the same.

The question is not about whether kids are going to have sex. Bar a small proportion who might get through to married life still a virgin, the majority of them are going to have sex. Short of locking them in the basement, you will not be able to prevent this happening. And they will have sex with or without contraception.

To paraphrase what the pope said, having sex outside of marriage is wrong, but if you are going to do it, then preventing the spread of STDs and perhaps avoiding an abortion is not such a bad thing.