Contraception...Why is it considered sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rosejmj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rosejmj

Guest
Do I have been reading up on different contraception methods and effectiveness rates and side effects etc. Honestly it’s hard for me to understand why NFP is the only method allowed. Society is much different now and it’s generally not a great idea to have a many kids as possible. Because of modern medicine and abundant food it seems it is more likely to get pregnant, less likely to get a miscarriage or die during childbirth, and child mortality rates are much lower, and the population is bigger making it unnecessary to have as many pregnancies. Honestly it should be encouraged to limit a plan pregnancies for the good of families and societies. In many cases at least. While NFP would be ideal because it is natural AND has less side effects it has high failure rates and certainly doesn’t work for every woman which seems to cause strain in marriages where they feel morally unable to use other methods of contraception. While sex is not everything, it is a vital component to most marriages and helps to create intimacy and bond the couple. It would be unhealthy to abstain for years because a couple cannot risk another pregnancy and yet I hear countless stories of people going through predicaments like this.

The Catholic Church just uses the argument that by using contraception you are not open to life and not fulfilling on of the means of sex which is procreation or not giving yourself entirely to the other. The thing is NFP is a method of contraception as well. It has failure rates just like most other forms of contraception. And the intention is to limit/plan pregnancies. You can be on the pill just as you could be using NFP and hope you don’t get pregnant. On either one you could get pregnant and you could accept the pregnancy even if unintended. Basically you can be open to an unplanned pregnancy regardless of whether you are using a more natural form of contraception or not. And there will usually always be a chance of getting pregnant . I can still give myself to my spouse even if I am trying to avoid pregnancy with some method.

I come from a big family and honestly I don’t think it’s usually the healthiest environment to grow up in. Yet among conservative Catholics it’s hailed to have a big family. While it’s up to each couple, I don’t think having 10 kids should be encouraged, not for most people. But Catholics are making it hard by not offering many options to avoid having kids. I’ve seen issues even with my parents, having several unplanned pregnancies that caused stress and having to rely on almost complete abstinence. Of course being religious it’s just said that it’s part of God’s plan etc… And they have to make sacrifices… Just because some pope condemned it. The rationale for NFP and no other contraception has very few rational arguments even religious arguments let alone reasons based on natural law. I don’t get it.
 
This is a long post, so it’s impossible to address all of your questions in one post.

Your first concern, which is the one I’ll address, is that “society has changed”. Modern medicine, abundant food, miscarriage and child mortality down- but my question to you is, why are these relevant? Contraception isn’t prohibited by the Church because child mortality rates used to be astronomical or that food was short. The Church forbids it because it is immoral, irregardless of mortality or resources, so it simply doesn’t make sense to bring these up as objections. They’re incommensurable.
 
It’s not overpopulation as much as it’s not necessary to have as many kids. And due to many factors it’s also inconvenient for many
 
It doesn’t explain why contraception takes away from either the procreative or unitive aspects of sex. Procreation is still a possibility even when using other methods of contraception that are not NFP. Unless you get your tubes tied or a vasectomy procreation will not be rendered impossible
 
rosejmj said:
It’s not overpopulation as much as it’s not necessary to have as many kids. And due to many factors it’s also inconvenient for many
Click to expand...
What’s that got to do with contraception or NFP? People don’t have to use contraception in order to avoid procreation. And NFP wasn’t invented so that people could pop out babies like rabbits. So why bring it up?
 
rosejmj said:
It doesn’t explain why contraception takes away from either the procreative or unitive aspects of sex. Procreation is still a possibility even when using other methods of contraception that are not NFP. Unless you get your tubes tied or a vasectomy procreation will not be rendered impossible
Click to expand...
The Catechism has several paragraphs on the topic in multiple places that explain exactly that. The link I provided is within a word searchable version. Go and learn and enjoy.
 
People have to use some method of contraception to avoid having kids if they are sexually active- married
 
rosejmj said:
People have to use some method of contraception to avoid having kids if they are sexually active- married
Click to expand...
Nonsense. They can do something called “don’t have sex when the wife is in her fertile period”.
 
I’m curious. Is there anything explicitly saying methods of contraception are sinful? From the section I read the only methods that areinful are those that rendered procreation impossible. Only tubes tied and vasectomy fit that description
 
It’s not that simple unfortunately. Women have irregular cycles, may ovulate more than once during their cycle, may ovulate when not expected… Which is why it has high failure rates. Unfortunately it’s not that simple. It’s so easy to go wrong and end up pregnant when you don’t want to
 
Go back and reread that, and then copy/paste the text here. You misstated what said.
 
370 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

So it states that the rhythm method or NFP is moral. It then states that actions that render procreation impossible are also evil. Yet it does not state whether other methods that do not render procreation impossible or moral or immoral.
 
rosejmj said:
It’s not that simple unfortunately. Women have irregular cycles, may ovulate more than once during their cycle, may ovulate when not expected… Which is why it has high failure rates. Unfortunately it’s not that simple. It’s so easy to go wrong and end up pregnant when you don’t want to
Click to expand...
Hence the birth of modern sympto-thermal methods and napro technology. But when even that is too risky, God also invented something called “abstinence “.
 
Yes that helps but it isn’t very accurate. There isn’t enough evidence for it. Abstinence is okay but often unhealthy for marriages if prolonged for years
 
rosejmj said:
t then states that actions that render procreation impossible are also evil
Click to expand...
No…it says those actions that “propose to” render it impossible. You see, sin is in the act of the will. In other words, engaging in an act, while simultaneously seeking to thwart the natural ends of that act. (This is covered in other parts of the Catechism, and the works used to cite those parts. I recommend you spend some time studying the topic. )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top