Debate help: Contraception mentality leads to divorce, homosexuality, murder

[ahs]

Church teaching is established on this issue. If you reject the Church’s teaching authority here you cannot call on it to defend why homosexual acts are wrong.

Good point.

 

[Jaaanosik]

News flash. The Church teaches that the procreative and the unitive aspects of sex cannot be separated in the sexual act.

From the Catechism:

From Humanae Vitae

Church teaching is established on this issue. If you reject the Church’s teaching authority here you cannot call on it to defend why homosexual acts are wrong.

Well, here is a quote from HV:

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

What is the moral order? God’s law and natural law.
The natural law says that 3 weeks out 4 a baby conception can not happen.
What is the moral order if this is not the case? When the natural law is not present in women that don’t have regular cycles as natural law intended.

 

[ahs]

Well, here is a quote from HV:

What is the moral order? God’s law and natural law.
The natural law says that 3 weeks out 4 a baby conception can not happen.
What is the moral order if this is not the case? When the natural law is not present in women that don’t have regular cycles as natural law intended.

He’s stating that you can’t justify an evil just because it would be done for a percieved good. To fit into this thread’s topic, you can’t contracept a sex act in order to prevent [insert percieved terrible outcome of conception here] from happening. But you CAN avoid having sex altogehter during a fertile time, and you CAN have sex on non-fertile days since, as you point out, nature has provided the “3 weeks out of 4 a baby conception can not happen.” However, the nature of the sex acts engaged in still must be ordered to the natural ends…so no contraceptives even during non-fertile times.*

 

[Jaaanosik]

He’s stating that you can’t justify an evil just because it would be done for a percieved good. To fit into this thread’s topic, you can’t contracept a sex act in order to prevent [insert percieved terrible outcome of conception here] from happening. But you CAN avoid having sex altogehter during a fertile time, and you CAN have sex on non-fertile days since, as you point out, nature has provided the “3 weeks out of 4 a baby conception can not happen.” However, the nature of the sex acts engaged in still must be ordered to the natural ends…so no contraceptives even during non-fertile times.*
I am asking where is a contradiction to moral order if natural law is not present in women with irregularities.

 

[Nate13]

Well, here is a quote from HV:

What is the moral order? God’s law and natural law.
The natural law says that 3 weeks out 4 a baby conception can not happen.
What is the moral order if this is not the case? When the natural law is not present in women that don’t have regular cycles as natural law intended.

Sigh I won’t derail the thread by going into this because your understanding of the concept of natural law is flawed. I know your idea of it is flawed in a fundamental way just in how you talk about it here in your post. The way you talk about natural law is nonsensical.

Your misunderstanding still results in irrationality though, because intentionally or not your denying Church teaching on natural moral law (scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm).

I have also explained this concept to you in another thread and I remember that just ending in you claiming that love overrode natural law and as far as I could tell conceding that contraception went against natural law.

 

[Nate13]

I am asking where is a contradiction to moral order if natural law is not present in women with irregularities.

I’ll walk you through it.

1. How do you know those women have an irregular cycle? What do you have to know in order to say something is irregular?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Sigh I won’t derail the thread by going into this because your understanding of the concept of natural law is flawed. I know your idea of it is flawed in a fundamental way just in how you talk about it here in your post. The way you talk about natural law is nonsensical.

Your misunderstanding still results in irrationality though, because intentionally or not your denying Church teaching on natural moral law (scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm).

I have also explained this concept to you in another thread and I remember that just ending in you claiming that love overrode natural law and as far as I could tell conceding that contraception went against natural law.

Did you show anything that says that God’s law is not super-natural? That it’s not above natural law?

 

[Nate13]

Did you show anything that says that God’s law is not super-natural? That it’s not above natural law?

I believe I did answer that, but if your going to claim that principle again I have to ask why don’t you apply it to homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery as well? I believe the link I provided to the Catechism describes the relationship between natural law and divine revelation well. It also explains the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament very well.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I believe I did answer that, but if your going to claim that principle again I have to ask why don’t you apply it to homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery as well? I believe the link I provided to the Catechism describes the relationship between natural law and divine revelation well. It also explains the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament very well.

I told you in the post #48.

 

[Nate13]

I told you in the post #48.

And yet again I would argue that holds no weight since you cannot call on the teaching authority of the Church to support your interpretation if you deny it in relation to natural law, contraception, or wherever else you choose to deny it.

You cannot point to the Catechism to support you on homosexual acts being immoral and overlook the teaching on contraception in the same document and be rational.

 

[Jaaanosik]

And yet again I would argue that holds no weight since you cannot call on the teaching authority of the Church to support your interpretation if you deny it in relation to natural law, contraception, or wherever else you choose to deny it.

You cannot point to the Catechism to support you on homosexual acts being immoral and overlook the teaching on contraception in the same document and be rational.

I see, so I can not point out a potential contradiction, and why is that?
You know if the contradiction is there it will not go away regardless if I am allowed to say so or not.

 

[mitex]

 

[ahs]

I see, so I can not point out a potential contradiction, and why is that?
You know if the contradiction is there it will not go away regardless if I am allowed to say so or not.

Maybe I’m missing something you are saying.

You said natural law is not present in an woman with an irregular cycle? I don’t understand how you’d come to this, but I think we are just not understanding each other. Are you saying that a woman with an irregular cycle is not bound by natural law?

You keep referring to post #48, in which you stated that sex outside of marriage is immoral and referred to a chapter in the Bible that talks about marriage. I’m assuming that you are saying that, because sex is ONLY for marriage, this provides the basis for condemning homosexual sex. I agree.

So, how does this support contraception? How would you justify contracepting a marital act that is solely for marriage, when the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, according to natural law, which you also are pointing to?

In other words, it sounds to me like you are using natural law to condemn homosexual sex, but overlooking it to justify contraception. It can’t rationally be done.

OR if you are only looking at Scripture to condemn homosexual sex, you must also accept Scripture to condemn contraception.

You must also look at WHY sex is for marriage only. What is the purpose of having marital sex? Procreation…which you can deduce to being sex that is not sterile…sex that is open to the creation of life within the marriage bond which is naturally ordered to procreation… and sex that simultaneously unifies. In looking at contracepted sex, whether in a marriage or not: what is contracepted sex, that non-contracepted sex isn’t? It’s sterile, sex without the procreative aspect. What is homosexual sex that married sex isn’t? It’s sterile, sex wihtout the procreative aspect.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Maybe I’m missing something you are saying.

You said natural law is not present in an woman with an irregular cycle? I don’t understand how you’d come to this, but I think we are just not understanding each other. Are you saying that a woman with an irregular cycle is not bound by natural law?

You keep referring to post #48, in which you stated that sex outside of marriage is immoral and referred to a chapter in the Bible that talks about marriage. I’m assuming that you are saying that, because sex is ONLY for marriage, this provides the basis for condemning homosexual sex. I agree.

So, how does this support contraception? How would you justify contracepting a marital act that is solely for marriage, when the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, according to natural law, which you also are pointing to?

In other words, it sounds to me like you are using natural law to condemn homosexual sex, but overlooking it to justify contraception. It can’t rationally be done.

OR if you are only looking at Scripture to condemn homosexual sex, you must also accept Scripture to condemn contraception.

You must also look at WHY sex is for marriage only. What is the purpose of having marital sex? Procreation…which you can deduce to being sex that is not sterile…sex that is open to the creation of life within the marriage bond which is naturally ordered to procreation… and sex that simultaneously unifies. In looking at contracepted sex, whether in a marriage or not: what is contracepted sex, that non-contracepted sex isn’t? It’s sterile, sex without the procreative aspect. What is homosexual sex that married sex isn’t? It’s sterile, sex wihtout the procreative aspect.

I am glad you see that any sex outside of marriage is immoral regardless of contraception.

The Church recognizes that a couple can reason and decide that their sexual act does not have to be procreative. The couple can use infertile periods to control birth.
The Church says non-abortive contraception is wrong because “it intends directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order”.

All I am asking is what moral order is being contradicted?
Here it seems more cases of moral order can be discussed. One of them - natural law not being present in women with irregular cycles; and there are more examples.

 

[fix]

The Church recognizes that a couple can reason and decide that their sexual act does not have to be procreative. The couple can use infertile periods to control birth.

The Church says every marital act must be *ordered *toward procreation.

The Church says non-abortive contraception is wrong because “it intends directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order”.

All I am asking is what moral order is being contradicted?

The natural moral law.

Here it seems more cases of moral order can be discussed. One of them - natural law not being present in women with irregular cycles; and there are more examples.

The natural moral law is present in each person regardless of medical problems.

 

[ahs]

I am glad you see that any sex outside of marriage is immoral regardless of contraception.

The Church recognizes that a couple can reason and decide that their sexual act does not have to be procreative. The couple can use infertile periods to control birth.
The Church says non-abortive contraception is wrong because “it intends directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order”.

All I am asking is what moral order is being contradicted?
Here it seems more cases of moral order can be discussed. One of them - natural law not being present in women with irregular cycles; and there are more examples.

Okay, I see what you are saying now, and I see Nate13 does as well and so does fix, yet trying not to derail the thread. The 2 things I bolded are not part of Catholic Teaching. A couple can decide to have sex when their act will NATURALLY be non-procreative (during an infertile time), yet must still be ordered to procreation. Also, an irregular cycle in a woman does not affect natural law…it just means she has irregular cycles. These topics should be addressed in a separate thread where they can get adequate attention, where you can also define what you mean by moral law vs. what moral law really is.

 

[fix]

Some help from HV:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

 

[Nate13]

I see, so I can not point out a potential contradiction, and why is that?
You know if the contradiction is there it will not go away regardless if I am allowed to say so or not.

Actually I’m just demanding you are consistent and logical. If your going to claim the Church is wrong on natural moral law you are rejecting the Church’s teaching authority on issues of faith and morals. Thus you have no right to call upon it to decry homosexual acts. Thus that leaves any translation or interpretation of scripture a matter of personal opinion.

The point is that once you have decided the Church is wrong on one issue your in free fall from there. Especially when your basis for rejecting the teaching is that the law of “love” overcomes natural law. The real problem with your thinking is that you believe natural law and love are contradictory. Natural law is the owner’s manual for how to love. Regardless you should stop and think for a second here and realize that your reasoning for rejecting the Doctrine on contraception, is the same reasoning high schooler’s use to justify fornication and the same reason homosexual’s use to justify homosexual acts. I’m glad you still realize both those things are wrong, but you should realize the inconsistency in your argument.

 

[Nate13]

Okay, I see what you are saying now, and I see Nate13 does as well and so does fix, yet trying not to derail the thread. The 2 things I bolded are not part of Catholic Teaching. A couple can decide to have sex when their act will NATURALLY be non-procreative (during an infertile time), yet must still be ordered to procreation. Also, an irregular cycle in a woman does not affect natural law…it just means she has irregular cycles. These topics should be addressed in a separate thread where they can get adequate attention, where you can also define what you mean by moral law vs. what moral law really is.

The problem with the arguments as well is the fact that most Catholics could not tell you what natural law is to begin with. Most people are even more inconsistent than Jaaanosik is here, even if they do not know it. You cannot look out for what you don’t see coming. Most people are basing their opposition to homosexual acts on the fact that:

1. It doesn’t have an effect on them personally to call those acts immoral. They don’t have to make any hard decisions in their life because of it in other words.
2. The Bible gives some good passages against it that make people stop and think before they weasel out of them.
3. In a very primitive natural law sense they just see those kinds of acts to be disordered without knowing that this is a natural law argument.

This leaves them open to attack though because what usually happens is they are guilt tripped to give up on 3. They are told they only think its disordered because they are heterosexual and its not fair of them to reject homosexual the same love they are able to enjoy. They give up on 1 because it also doesn’t affect them to say homosexual acts are moral and once you have rejected the Church’s teaching authority once its not so hard to do so again. And 2 finally goes when they hear someone’s crazy translation or give in to the “law of love” ideal.

Heck everything has become okay in today’s age in the name of love. People even get abortions in the name of love nowadays.

 

[ryecroft]

The correlation is that contraception is justified by claiming one can remove the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the marital act (sex). “I can have sex to express my love/unity with this person without having to accept the procreative nature of the act.”

Homosexuality follows the same justification when you boil it down. “I can have sex with this person I love to express my unitiy with them (or for mere pleasure) without regarding that there is a procreative aspect that is naturally a part of sex.”

Well, let’s dicuss, then, why divorce has become more acceptable. Why has it? What is it about today that is different from the 1800’s-1960’s that has made divorece more acceptable?

Regarding homosexuality…this has been clarified 3 times in this thread already. (See posts 16, 17, 18, 19, and 28 for review.) I used the wrong terminology. If you want to discuss this aspect of the thread, word your response according to my clarifications please. If you could, also please show me something that suggests homosexual behavior was accepted in American society as a normal or otherwise acceptable behavior prior to the introduction of popular contraceptive use in the 1960’s. Also please answer for me why, all of the sudden, has homosexual activity begun to be seen as acceptable in our society. (Hint, it’s because sex has begun to been seen as an expression of love or unity, absent the procreative aspect.)

Can you show where abortion has existed prior to contraception. Contraception is not new…been around for some 9,000 years or something like that. Also, can you please show where abortion has been as prevelent in any society as it is today in America…and please also show how prevelant (or absent) contraception use was at that time in that society.

Contraception has never been safer for the woman - or as effective at ending a pregnancy. Before, it was a wait and see mentality - take certain herbs and wait,there are many other ways people achieved abortion in other ways- but it was also much, much more dangerous for the woman than it is today. There is little or no question about the fetus being terminated, unless you’re taking the abortion pill - which brings me to how much easier it is to have an abortion - you take a pill, then take another pill a few days later then get checked by the doctor to make sure everything is out of your body. Yes, people can still die from these methods, but much, much more rarely than ever before.
I could well imagine a girl getting pregnant during college or high school and not wanting to jeopardize her education - fact is that if you are in high school and have a child, you have a less than 25% chance of going on to university. For many, it would seem much easier for them to not have to ‘deal’ with the pregnancy. It’s pretty obvious to me why so many women get abortions - if they wern’t planning on having a child at that time, it’s easier for them to go take a couple of pills, deal with some stomach pain and not have to worry about everything that goes along with pregnancy -
God Bless
Rye