Contraception...Why is it considered sinful?

[Inquiry]

So when you are trying to justify your viewpoints, why do you keep reaching for outliers?

 

[phil19034]

and the population is bigger making it unnecessary to have as many pregnancies

Well, this part is actually false. When the birth rate falls below two, it’s sign that society is on it’s way to collapse.

Reason: In order to fund all of the govt programs, infrasture, etc that we have, we need to be able to replace the older generations. When the birth rate falls below 2, we can’t replace and are looking for an epic crash.

 

[phil19034]

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?"

I think Taylor’s article brings has s a very good point (though he doesn’t specifically say it) and that really is “openness to life.” Most people I know who practice NFP do so because of economic or health reasons.

The poverty line changes by location and size of the family. The bigger the family, the lower the poverty line.

He also mentions debt, which is a huge deal for many couples today.

So economic reasons do exist.

However, it is theoretically possible for a “rich” couple with no issues to sin because of NFP. But the sin would not be the fact that they used NFP. The sin would be the fact that they are not open to life.

NFP is always morally neutral because it’s simply fasting from sex.

However, a couple not open to life can be in a state of sin because of their internal motivations, etc.

NOW: with that said, I would argue that most people who don’t want kids for purely selfish/sinful reasons don’t use NFP.

I hope I’m making sense.

 

[Jen95]

You think abortion rates would go down with contraception @rosejmj?
Then why did American society “need” legal abortion on demand after the bc pill became widely available after about 1968? Then Roe made abortion more widely available just five years later?
The problem is the “contraceptive mindset” which is seen as normal now. That mindset thinks “everyone has a right to have casual sex anytime without having to deal with children”. That is just not a biological reality though, and women end up paying the price.

 

[1ke]

I think abortion rates would go down with contraception.

I don’t know where you’ve been since 1973-- well actually 1965’s Griswold v Connecticut court case that legalized sale of contraception (for married people)-- but abortion rates did not go down with widespread contraception. They went up. Because people had a lot more sex outside of marriage, with the expectation of sex without kids.

In fact, in Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that women relied on abortion when contraception failed.

Griswold v Connecticut set the precedent for a number of court cases. You can trace these “rights” directly to Griswold: Eisenstadt v. Baird legalizing contraception for unmarried people, Roe v Wade legalizing abortion, Carey v. Population Services International legalizing contraception for minors, Lawrence v. Texas striking down homosexuality laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges creating the right to same sex marriage.

Why would homosexuality have anything to do with contraception use??? They don’t need contraception.

Homosexual sex acts are immoral for the same reason contraception is immoral.

 

[VeryBlessed]

The thing is I don’t understand the reasoning behind why it’s immoral.

I would encourage you to think sociologically, more broadly. Think about the changes that have come forth in our society since the introduction of the birth control pill AND ESPECIALLY it’s near universal acceptance and embrace by our society. Unfaithfulness in marriage soared, out of wedlock births soared, divorce soared. I would also suggest that abortion never would’ve been legalized if not for the introduction of the pill 10 years earlier.

I would also lay blame for the explosion of the same sex movement at the feet of the pill. Thinking philosophically, birth control re-creates what God made. He made sex about procreation and pleasure. When we strip the procreation part out of sex and it’s only purpose is pleasure, who is to say that same sex experiences are wrong, if they’re pleasurable?

Abstinence also builds up the muscle of self control and unselfishness in us, both of which are crucial for a good and faithful marriage. Our complete loss of sexual self control is not at all a good thing. And NFP is far more than simply abstinence. If you think that NFP is all abstinence, you need to research it more.

I’m glad you’re asking these questions. There are good solid answers if you’re open. The church does not make pronouncements like this, unless there are really good reasons for it.

 

[1ke]

I would encourage you to think sociologically, more broadly.

While the sociological consequences could be and were predicted by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, we need to be careful to distinguish consequences of acts from the morality of the acts.

Contraception isn’t immoral because it has bad consequences.

 

[blackforest]

@rosejmj Friendly advice: CAF may not be the best place to go for insight on any of the pelvic issues. I got a lot more thoughtful answers to these questions during a one-on-one consultation with a deacon.

 

[goout]

@rosejmj Friendly advice: CAF may not be the best place to go for insight on any of the pelvic issues. I got a lot more thoughtful answers to these questions during a one-on-one consultation with a deacon.

Well, a deacon will give the same doctrine. And face to face where there is a lot less time to think between responses. So, might be more personal and thoughtful in that regard, but no difference in material.

@rosejmj do you see the difference between the following?

1 I eat a hamburger.
2 I eat a hamburger and immediately vomit it up cause I’m on a diet til March. But I still love me some hamburgers.
3 I don’t eat a hamburger

Can you see that 1 and 2 are acts?
3 is not an act.

And here is the key concept:
morality evaluates human acts.
Human acts are ordered to a specific good, and they are evaluated in reference to that good.
Vomiting up your food is not how eating is ordered. Ordering an act to the good has value in itself, even before considering the results of the action.

Human sexuality is ordered to the existence and flourishing of human life, and is evaluated in reference to that good.
You shouldn’t really use a hammer to dice an onion. It will do the job, but…you get the idea.

 

[blackforest]

Well, a deacon will give the same doctrine.

No offense, bro, but if I had to choose between this thread and the chat I had with my deacon, there would be no contest. A priest or deacon can provide a lot more thoughtful and thorough insight than one could ever get by crowd-sourcing these issues with CAF laity.

But by all means, carry on! :clinking_glasses:

 

[goout]

goout:

Well, a deacon will give the same doctrine.

No offense, bro, but if I had to choose between this thread and the chat I had with my deacon, there would be no contest. A priest or deacon can provide a lot more thoughtful and thorough insight that one could ever get by crowd-sourcing these issues to CAF laity.

But by all means, carry on! :clinking_glasses:

Ok “bro”.
I talk with my favorite confessor and spiritual advisor. But here we are with a question on the internet…
so, people are answering it.

 

[PennyinCanada]

No offense, bro, but if I had to choose between this thread and the chat I had with my deacon, there would be no contest. A priest or deacon can provide a lot more thoughtful and thorough insight than one could ever get by crowd-sourcing these issues with CAF laity.

Perhaps you’d like to share the thoughtful and thorough insight you received.

 

[rosejmj]

Your example doesn’t work very well though. Every time you eat a hamburger ur also contributes nutrients and energy to your body u less you throw it up. Every time you have sex with or without contraception you are not making a baby. If it constantly had to be ordered to procreation it would be wise to avoid sex when infertile. Every time you have sex and use contraception there is. Chance you will concieve just as with NFP. The chance is just slimmer

 

[1ke]

Your example doesn’t work very well though. Every time you eat a hamburger ur also contributes nutrients and energy to your body u less you throw it up.

Analogies aren’t perfect. This analogy was attempting to convey the desire for sensual pleasure while frustrating its ends (by vomiting).

Every time you have sex with or without contraception you are not making a baby.

That isn’t the basis for the immorality of contraception.

Each marital act must be per se ordered to procreation and unity of spouses. If it is not, it is a disordered sex act.

If it constantly had to be ordered to procreation it would be wise to avoid sex when infertile.

You aren’t understanding that ordered to procreation isn’t the same thing as conception or even trying to conceive.

Marital acts between spouses when the wife is already pregnant, marital acts between post-menopausal couples, marital acts between couples who are infertile due to disease or defect-- all of these are per se ordered to procreation when they are completed acts of vaginal intercourse. Such couples are not free to disorder the marital act either-- such as replacing intercourse with manual/oral stimulation to climax, etc.

Chance you will concieve just as with NFP. The chance is just slimmer

The chance of conception has NO bearing on the morality of the act. I would encourage you to move away from this line of thinking because it isn’t helpful. It doesn’t matter how effective or ineffective various methods of contraception are, nor does it matter how effective or ineffective monitoring fertility signs are. They aren’t the basis of the morality of the acts.

 

[whatistrue]

If it constantly had to be ordered to procreation it would be wise to avoid sex when infertile. Every time you have sex and use contraception there is. Chance you will concieve just as with NFP. The chance is just slimmer

Every time you have sex and use artificial contraception you are changing the way the female body is intended to work in order to make conception extremely difficult. By using NFP, you are working along with the way the female body is intended to work in order to decrease or increase the likelihood of conception. One is deliberately thwarting the function, the other is accommodating your activity to the function.

 

[blackforest]

Not on CAF, sorry. Even anonymously, it would be inappropriate.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

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

Looking at your reasons listed below, I can only ask why you think this.

Because of modern medicine and abundant food

Why would easier access to food and better medical care inspire one to have fewer children rather than more, seeing as it’s easier to care for them?

less likely to get a miscarriage or die during childbirth

IOW, childbearing is safer…so have fewer children?

the population is bigger making it unnecessary to have as many pregnancies

Population is falling in all western nations. Any growth is imported. Anyway, not sure how population increase or decrease would be relevant to choosing to obey the Church or not (nor any of the above, but I couldn’t help but see them as opposed to your thoughts on not having children). I’m also not sure what you mean by necessary; children are a blessing.

The question is do you believe or not. If yes, you obey. If no, you don’t. Easy peasy.

it should be encouraged to limit a plan pregnancies for the good of families and societies

What does that mean in your opinion?

While NFP would be ideal because it is natural AND has less side effects

Actually, it’s ideal because it is in keeping with God’s law when used in a lawful manner, right? Natural isn’t a moral issue. Side effects are a burden chosen by those who disobey God’s law.

it has high failure rates and certainly doesn’t work for every woman

I’ve heard it has quite a low rate of failure, not that that actually matters, unless getting what you want is more important to you than doing what God wants you to do.

which seems to cause strain in marriages

Is that the cause though? It seems like a symptom of not being open to life and to God’s providence is the cause of the strain.

where they feel morally unable to use other methods of contraception.

It’s not a feeling. They are morally unable to use other methods of contraception. To use them is to commit an immoral act.

While sex is not everything, it is a vital component to most marriages and helps to create intimacy and bond the couple.

Grace is vital to a marriage. The unitive act can help, but is no guarantee of success. The way it’s described here is more like a firefighter putting out a fire.

It would be unhealthy to abstain for years because a couple cannot risk another pregnancy

Simply untrue. It would be undesirable by most couples. We all have crosses to bear.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

and yet I hear countless stories of people going through predicaments like this.

Yup.
Numbers don’t matter though.
Only our obedience to our call matters.

“If you love me you will obey me.”
“My grace is sufficient for you.”

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’s not an argument. That’s a statement of what God intends through the unitive act. It isn’t merely to put out a fire.

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

Technically, it isn’t. NFP doesn’t prevent pregnancy. It is having intercourse at a time when fertility is negligible to non-existent. NFP happens naturally any time a couple has intercourse at that time regardless of whether they are watching for it or not.

Regarding intention, even NFP isn’t to be used because, say, you won’t be able to afford a Hawaiian vacation or you think children are inconvenient…or unnecessary (whatever that means).

 

[jochoa]

Dear @rosejmj,

You are correct that NFP can be perverted and used solely as a method of contraception, in which case would be sinful. However, the best/sinless use of NFP is found when viewing reproduction as a goal, in which a married couple uses NFP to increase their chances of creating a child of God.

Furthermore, contraception is sinful because it leads a human life to believe that the creation of human life is a failure, as evidenced in your post.
“[Contraception] has failure rates.”
Contraception has lead you to believe that the creation of children of God are failures, which is both a contradiction and immoral.

Will you please open your mind and heart to trust deeper the Catholic Faith?

Sincerely,
jochoa

 

[rosejmj]

There are non hormonal methods of birth control such as a condom