Contraception...Why is it considered sinful?

[goout]

JMMJ:

ted. It doesn’t have to be one or the other (of the two scenarios you describe).

Loving couples use con

Of course. But without being open to parenthood, it isn’t a marriage.

If a 70 year old man and 70 year old woman get married, it isn’t a real marriage if they’re not open to parenthood? I can see how a couple at that age might not want to have young children even if it was somehow miraculously possible.

“open to” is not the same thing as results.

I am open to being kind to the next person that walks in my door. I try to be ordered that way.
Will a person walk in the door? I don’t know. Will I in fact be kind? I don’t know.
But my disposition ought to be ordered that way.

Does art accomplish results? Does a Picasso do anything? No. But it has order, and meaning, and purpose. And that has value in and of itself.

When we demand results as proof of the value of something, I think we lapse into utilitarianism.

 

[whatistrue]

How about not wanting your wife because she IS fertile (NFP style). Is that better?

You think the desire goes away? Nope. What you both do is exercise self control if you don’t want a child at that time.

 

[whatistrue]

But do you imagine in any set of circumstances that you could possibly conceive that a seventy year old couple would consider having a child?

Yes I can. Why do you seem to think that all 70 year olds think exactly alike, and like you?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Even 70 year old people must be open to the possibility of procreation, even if it only possible by miracle.

Now, practically speaking this is a non-issue. But for the sake of the discussion let’s go further in. A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

 

[Vico]

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

I know this has been explained to you in the past. But for anyone else reading this, even 70 year old people should be open to the possibility of procreation, even if only possible by miracle, in order to be married. If not, thentheir intentions are disordered.

Could you please explain what you mean by ‘open to the possibility’? There is no doubt in my mind that it implies that the couple enter into an agreement to have sex with the understanding that it may result in conception (even if they are seventy years old!) and that they are entirely ok with that result.
…
How do you deal with this?

A married couple are not bound to reproduce. Venerable Pope Pius XII wrote (in 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.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Even 70 year old people must be open to the possibility of procreation, even if it only possible by miracle.

Now, practically speaking this is a non-issue. But for the sake of the discussion let’s go further in. A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I am only going to offer the following as a suggestion. It is not my intention to dogmatize.

When there are circumstances that make having children going forward difficult to consider, or even physically impossible, it might be good to lament the fact that one’s childbearing days are over, and wish it were possible to have more children. I can only offer my own experience. I am 59 years old and still bound to my lawful wife, who has chosen to “remarry” without the permission of the Church. There is no annulment and may never be. That is fine — no divorced person has to get an annulment. Even if my lawful wife were to die tomorrow (God forbid — she is the mother of our son and a lady for whom I have the utmost esteem), and I were to remarry, having more children is not likely. I have a very modest income, and even if I were wealthy, that still does not undo the fact that if I fathered a child this time next year, I would be 79 when they turned 18. That’s too old. I wish I were a multi-millionaire and had a dozen children (with the means and wherewithal to raise them properly, and to educate them well) — there is no more glorious vocation for a layman, than to send a large family into the world, strong in the Faith, to bear future generations themselves and to build up the Body of Christ — but those are not my circumstances. They are what they are, and while I am thankful for my one son, I wish I had half a dozen of him. I regret that it can never be otherwise, and if by some chance I were to remarry (given the scenario I described above, or a similar one), I would in some way mourn the fact that our marital life could not be ideally fecund as it should be.

 

[PennyinCanada]

rosejmj You’ve spent a lot of time arguing with strangers on the internet over this issue. You are not even there yet. There’s a saying, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.

You are spending a lot of time saying NO. You heard the teaching, spend time with God praying that this is a hard teaching, help me to want to respond to your grace. Help me to have a generous heart. God can’t do anything with a person who is stuck saying NO.

You know what I learned in school? I asked myself, am I teachable? Am I willing to listen, to take in information? Can I meet the challenge? Can I adapt to changing situations? Am I malleable? God can do amazing things when he has a person like this. The sower of the seed in scripture has seed fall on hard ground and nothing comes of it. Everything the seed needs to have to grow is there! That’s God’s grace and God’s word. Which is it that you want to be? I am afraid you’ve spent a lot of time on this subject saying no. Don’t stay there.

Malleability is the quality of something that can be shaped into something else without breaking, like the malleability of clay. Malleability — also called plasticity — has to do with whether something can be molded.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I’ve met some amazing people in my life, and you know, most of them were practicing Catholics.
One man was married, had adult kids, very smart family. Doctors in the family, very capable, smart. He had an mentally handicapped daughter. You know what he said? She is the best thing that ever happened to me.

That just knocked me over. He said he learned more about love and patience and acceptance from her. He said I would have been a very proud man. She kept him from falling into pride and raised him to love and joy. What a witness. That was his faith. That was Christ in him.

He met the challenges of his life and his heart grew bigger. He was a man of prayer and he asked What do I do now? Let’s do it together. He’s gone to his reward, blessed by God. Everyone will have challenges to meet. Life is better with God in. Otherwise we’ll crash and burn.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I would hope the model is not your mom alone with childraising. I hope there is an involved father, that they make sure mom gets alone time and date night.

And it seems parenting has only become more lax and passive with the last ones.

That happens with 3 kids or 13 kids. When I was a teen (oldest of 4) I would get my nose out of joint that my baby sis was allowed to wear makeup earlier than I had been, that she was allowed to date younger than I had been.

Now, as the parent of an adult child, I see how your first child is such a new adventure, you do not want to screw anything up, so you are strict on everything! You only want to have educational toys and organic food. By the time you have been a parent for a while you are more relaxed. You see that your fears for the first child were blown out of proportion, that letting kids have cookies before dinner won’t injure them.

Honestly there are times when I feel like my mom is going to break down and lose it.

Can you help give her a Saturday to just go do what she wants? Salon and manicure, see a movie, go to a museum or someone take the kids all day so she can sit on the sofa and watch Netflix and eat delivery food?

 

[Ammi]

rosejmj:

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.

This is an important point. NFP develops and strengthens self control (with trust in God’s providing) over carnal dominance (and its doubts and fears).

And directly speaking to this first post, prohibition of contraception (and positively practicing NFP) does not imply the notion to have as many children as possible.

 

[OddBird]

I would in some way mourn the fact that our marital life could not be ideally fecund as it should be.

As a married but infertile person, I share that sentiment.

 

[Ammi]

Contraception has infested the majority of us Catholics. We have little faith, and make many compromises, which harms our Church. We harm our own body. We scandalize our children, and we deny righteous sacrifice and suffering.

Catholic Teaching is sound and has rejected contraception. But this is absolutely no reason for any Catholic to have pride.

This is one aspect of the deteriation of the family, of which Satan and his demons have established a stronghold. He has made it a great priority to attack, corrupt, and breakdown the Domestic Church.

 

[Ammi]

Contraception is immoral because it deliberately removes a significant aspect of sex. Namely, the openness to creation, which entails love for one another (giving of self), and trust in our God.

Just like if marriage is removed from sex. It is immoral, and rejects God’s purpose.

NFP remains open to procreation, yet under just reasons, uses the God designed cycle of fertility to avoid pregnancy (or attempt pregnancy) while still not deliberately frustrating and blocking the biological process.

 

[Freddy]

A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I think you’re missing the point. A seventy year old couple wouldn’t need contraception. They’d be having sex purely for the enjoyment. Conception wouldn’t come into it. So how come they can enjoy sex just for the pleasure it gives them but a twenty year old couple cannot?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But do you imagine in any set of circumstances that you could possibly conceive that a seventy year old couple would consider having a child?

Yes I can.

Then I can’t see any possibilty of a reasonable discussion.

 

[goout]

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I think you’re missing the point. A seventy year old couple wouldn’t need contraception. They’d be having sex purely for the enjoyment. Conception wouldn’t come into it. So how come they can enjoy sex just for the pleasure it gives them but a twenty year old couple cannot?

Twenty year old people can’t enjoy sex? Whaaaaa?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I think you’re missing the point. A seventy year old couple wouldn’t need contraception. They’d be having sex purely for the enjoyment. Conception wouldn’t come into it. So how come they can enjoy sex just for the pleasure it gives them but a twenty year old couple cannot?

Twenty year old people can’t enjoy sex? Whaaaaa?

I mean with contraception. So that they can have sex without any chance of having children. As do the eighty year olds. Just for the enjoyment of it with no thought of conception.

 

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I think you’re missing the point. A seventy year old couple wouldn’t need contraception. They’d be having sex purely for the enjoyment. Conception wouldn’t come into it. So how come they can enjoy sex just for the pleasure it gives them but a twenty year old couple cannot?

Twenty year old people can’t enjoy sex? Whaaaaa?

I mean with contraception. So that they can have sex without any chance of having children. As do the eighty year olds. Just for the enjoyment of it with no thought of conception.

I’m not sure what your point is? Of course 80 year olds are not going to conceive. They can still enjoy sex like 20 year olds, if they are lucky.

 

[goout]

The married couple of any age are not mere tools that are useful for the results of having babies. That’s not the point. The point is to order human sexuality well. And that applies to married couples of any age.

I believe what you are trying to engage in is consequentialism, someone correct me if I am wrong. You are evaluating an act by the forseen consequences of it, rather than evaluating an act on it’s own merits.

Married couples have sex all the time hopefully, and only a small number of those cases result in pregnancy. With your evaluation, all those times no baby was conceived would be sinful!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Freddy:

AlmaRedemptorisMater:

A couple in their 70s who plan to use contraception to avoid even a miraculous conception is disordered in their intentions concerning marriage.

I think you’re missing the point. A seventy year old couple wouldn’t need contraception. They’d be having sex purely for the enjoyment. Conception wouldn’t come into it. So how come they can enjoy sex just for the pleasure it gives them but a twenty year old couple cannot?

Twenty year old people can’t enjoy sex? Whaaaaa?

I mean with contraception. So that they can have sex without any chance of having children. As do the eighty year olds. Just for the enjoyment of it with no thought of conception.

I’m not sure what your point is? Of course 80 year olds are not going to conceive. They can still enjoy sex like 20 year olds, if they are lucky.

Agreed. But it’s nonsensical to ask them to be ‘open to conception’. They physically can’t. It’s like asking them if they’re ‘open to levitation’.