Contraception...Why is it considered sinful?

[rosejmj]

I realized that when having a discussion with my mom just now. I don’t think it’s reasonable but if that’s what it means then I guess that is the Church’s teaching

 

[ahs]

I really highly recommend you study this in-depth. Search the relevant parts of the catechism, and study the encyclicals referenced in it. I spent a couple months devouring this information several years ago so I could understand it all. Agree or disagree, at least you will see the reasoning behind it.

 

[Annie]

The thing is NFP is a method of contraception as well.

The difference between limiting family size by ABC and by NFP is that in the one you are doing something to prevent the end of what you are doing, and in the other, you are not-doing it.

 

[1ke]

Society is much different now

God’s law is eternal. We are not free to use our sexual faculties in a disordered way.

it’s generally not a great idea to have a many kids as possible

The Church does not now, nor has it ever, required people to “have as many kids as possible”.

You are tilting at windmills with that line of thinking.

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.

That isn’t the argument the Church uses.

The thing is NFP is a method of contraception as well.

No. It isn’t. NFP is information.

Abstaining periodically is a method of birth control, which is not immoral. Abstaining, periodically or fully, is a moral means of spacing children, while contraception is an immoral means of spacing children.

It has failure rates

That isn’t what makes something contraception or not contraception.

And the intention is to limit/plan pregnancies.

And there are moral and immoral means of achieving that. The ends never justify the means.

Just because some pope condemned it.

Because God teaches us that it is grave matter against the sixth commandment. It isn’t “because some Pope” said something. It is because the moral law comes from God.

 

[1ke]

People have to use some method of contraception to avoid having kids if they are sexually active- married

No. They don’t.

Abstaining is the moral way to space children.

 

[rosejmj]

How do you know it comes from God? It’s not based on natural law. It’s just something those in authority have said is sinful.

 

[1ke]

Is there anything explicitly saying methods of contraception are sinful?

Yes. Read Humanae Vitae.

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.

NFP does not have a “high failure rate”. Nor does it require “regular cycles”.

It seems you don’t know much about NFP.

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.

You are misunderstanding what it is saying. It says methods that attempt to render procreation impossible are immoral: that is all contraceptive acts— whether before, during, or after, intercourse.

 

[rosejmj]

Abstaining for years isn’t usually healthy and NFP certainly doesn’t work for some

 

[1ke]

How do you know it comes from God? It’s not based on natural law.

Actually, it is. Read Humanae Vitae. And Casti Conubii.

It’s just something those in authority have said is sinful.

Not at all.

I can also recommend the book The Bible and Birth Control by Charles Provan (who is a Protestant minister who became convicted on the Bible’s teaching against contraception and wrote a book about it).

 

[rosejmj]

NFP does not have a “high failure rate”. Nor does it require “regular cycles”.

It seems you don’t know much about NFP

Unfortunately most research done shows it has a 25-40% failure rate. Some Catholics claim it has 98% effectiveness but they don’t have much research to back it up. While there are more ways to predict and tell when one is fertile it does not work for everyone. I have known and heard from several devout Catholics who were well informed and tried using several NFP methods that it didn’t work for them and often put a lot of strain on their marriages

Also the research is on the more modern fertility awareness models not the outdated rhythm method

 

[1ke]

Abstaining for years isn’t usually healthy and NFP certainly doesn’t work for some

Sometimes it’s necessary.

Those who enter marriage with a contraceptive mentality certainly will find it difficult.

Those who enter marriage with a Catholic understanding of the place sexual intimacy has within marriage will have a different approach to any hardship which abstaining— for any reason— may bring.

 

[1ke]

Unfortunately most research done shows it has a 25-40% failure rate

This is not at all accurate. There are many studies, and 25-40% failure is rubbish.

Some Catholics claim it has 98% effectiveness but they don’t have much research to back it up.

This is the perfect use rate, same for the pill. Typical use is less, same for the pill. But it isn’t 25-40%. That would be the rate for a calendar method, not a scientific method. Fertility Awareness is not NFP, in FAM couples use barrier contraception when fertile— which to me is just silly because: fertile.

But it doesn’t matter what “failure” rate it has.

The failure rate has no bearing on the morality.

If one cannot use NFP abstain periodically, then they will need to abstain more.

 

[rosejmj]

The thing is I don’t understand the reasoning behind why it’s immoral. Especially considering it’s similar to natural methods of avoiding conception in the intentions. The only reasons seem to be that the Church says so which to me is a bad reason if trying to talk to other Christians or people of other Faiths.

 

[rosejmj]

I can understand why abortion might be bad. You can come up with arguments that would apply to any human not just a Christian or Catholic. It would be hard to reason to if the only reasoning behind the immorality of abortion was that the Catechism says xyz about it

 

[Vico]

… I don’t get it.

Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives:

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

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 the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

 

[1ke]

The thing is I don’t understand the reasoning behind why it’s immoral. Especially considering it’s similar to natural methods of avoiding conception in the intentions.

Spacing children (the intention) isn’t immoral. But look at the fonts of morality: it isn’t intentions alone that make something moral or immoral. There are three fonts of morality.

Something that is intrinsically evil (contraception) can never be moral despite the best of intentions.

Abstaining is the only moral means of spacing children— whether that is periodically (using fertility observations) or completely.

Our sexual faculties are not ours to do with as we please. God created them for a purpose. That purpose is procreation coupled with unity of souses. These two are intricately bound and cannot be separated.

We use our sexual faculties properly only when we engage in properly ordered sexual intimacy. We are not free to disorder the act. Sexual acts are properly ordered when they are completed acts of vaginal intercourse.

Contraception is intrinsically evil because it deliberately separates the procreative and unitive elements of the marital embrace.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Society is much different now and it’s generally not a great idea to have a many kids as possible.

There’s such a thing as self-control and not being a slave to your physical impulses. It’s a good thing to learn.

Humans aren’t like animals in heat who have to go breed every time they get the urge.

 

[Jen95]

I think that the OP has one valid point – I believe that there is disagreement about whether Catholics are “allowed” to follow NFP any time / whenever, or whether it is only allowed for very serious considerations (not to be used routinely).

NFP and Serious Reasons...What are these reasons? - Taylor Marshall

Can you only use NFP for "serious reasons?" Moral Theology

I read a recent article about NFP that gave me a lot to think about. Thank goodness I’m not married yet so I don’t have to think too much about it right now but I would love to hear what everyone’s thoughts are on this issue. Here is the link, if you would like to read it in its entirety ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/storck.htm And here is an excerpt: I do recommend reading the entire article though. About a month after his earlier address, on November 26, 1951, Pius XII spoke to the Associ…

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Look at the natural consequences that are seen among society today following the eruption of contraception. Sexual deviance is at an all time high, abortion, divorce, remarriage, children without one or both parents, homosexuality etc…
These things all tie directly to the introduction and explosion of the use of contraception. Contraception, whether we like it or not, creates a whole new sexual battlefield where the nuclear family is forgotten and individual desires, or hedonism, is brought to the forefront.

 

[rosejmj]

I think abortion rates would go down with contraception. If it’s easier to avoid unwanted pregnancies less people will have unwanted pregnancies. Why would homosexuality have anything to do with contraception use??? They don’t need contraception. I think homosexuality is multi factorial and there is more involved than just people having more sex or worse parenting due to divorce due to contraception… Maybe single Parenthood is more common because less people just get married because they got pregnant out of wedlock which is probably good because many of those marriages weren’t done for the best reasons and could easily be unhealthy. While divorce is not ideal I am happy that individuals have the freedom to get divorced because there are always cases where it would be much better for a separation to occur and making divorce accessible and societally acceptable helps people, especially women in bad situations get out. While some of the things you mentioned aren’t good, there are more factors that play a role and while society might be less traditional in it’s values now a days there are certainly plus sides to it. Most of the “bad” things you mentioned have been around for centuries. Only it wasn’t societally acceptable and people had to keep those things hidden or risk being ostracized for them. While bad things should not be condoned it’s not healthy to ostracize people or not give options to people who desperately need them or force people to hide