Help: thematic argument on wrongness of contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter SighGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SighGuy

Guest
Dear friends,

I’d like to make a small and comprehendable approach to learning why contraception and other acts of sexual deviancy are wrong. It’s not meant to be a comprehensive discourse on the subject-- but just a thematic approach that acts as a support; for ourselves, if nothing else.

Please let me know if my argument is even usable, or if it is total junk. Especially the beginning paragraph I have doubts with, because I am not super strong with my understanding of the Trinity. If you can re-craft it, great.

Nevertheless, the read might be interesting to you, even if you don’t want to comment. It’s not long.

"God has a thought. Being of infinite intellect, God’s thought is infinite; and so infinite that it contains personhood. This Son of God is fully expressive of God’s intellect: no further thought can be. Now the will of God loves, and the love from Father to Son is mutual, and it is an infinite bond. Because it is so infinite, it contains personhood, and this is the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is spirated of the Father and the Son in unity, as they are united by the bond of love between Father and Son.

From nothing, God creates the world. This creation cannot benefit God, Who is Infinite, so lacks nothing. It is purely an act of disinterested love. Life, as we know it, is the fruit of Divine charity, or love.

After man has fallen, he is cut off from the Tree of Life. But in God’s mercy, He so loved the world that He sent His Only Begotten Son to be born onto the Earth: a new life.

Because of the love of Our Lord, Christ Jesus, He went and sacrificed Himself, for us, that we may die to our old selves which were slaves of the Devil; and raised Himself up and ascended into Heaven, that we, too, may have life eternal; for if we are united to Him as our Head, we will be raised and drawn up with Him. To secure this Way, He established His Holy Church.

The life-giving Sacraments of the Church are there because of the love of Our Lord. The Holy Church leads men to salvation and ever-lasting life because of Her love for all of mankind.

Life and love are connected inseparably. God’s love always bears fruit, which we call life. It does not fail, although the evil can reject life.

God has fashioned men and women as complements to one another. In their earthly pilgrimage, they may go hand-in-hand and participate in that Divine Prerogative, which is love. But what is the fruit between the love of a man and woman, except for what it has always been: life? So as God has never once failed to produce fruit, which we call life, by His love, you, too, must not separate life from love."

I’d welcome helpful criticisms, especially those which do not just criticize but show a better way of saying or doing something. Even if the whole thing is bunk, although I don’t really think it is.

Thanks.
 
If you ever get a chance, read St John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” The argument you present here – that nuptial love is an imitation of the love of the Trinity, and as Trinitarian love naturally begets, so does nuptial love – is one that he advances.

The only comments I’d have are:
  • The love that God the Father and God the Son have begets the Spirit, rather than the Incarnated Son.
  • I don’t think I’d call God’s love for creation ‘disinterested’.
Blessings,
G.
 
Thank you for your advice. I actually have not read on Pope St. JPII’s Theology of the Body, yet, although it interests me.

As to why I used disinterested, I only meant that God does not do it for his own selfish motives, rather than that God simply doesn’t care. If you already understood that but still disagree with its usage, then I am intrigued to know why.

Yet nevertheless, perhaps I could avoid the word, because it does cause confusion. The idea is just as easy to express by the phrase “selfless love” as “disinterested love” and there is less confusion.
 
SighGuy said:
As to why I used disinterested, I only meant that God does not do it for his own selfish motives, rather than that God simply doesn’t care. If you already understood that but still disagree with its usage, then I am intrigued to know why.

Yet nevertheless, perhaps I could avoid the word, because it does cause confusion. The idea is just as easy to express by the phrase “selfless love” as “disinterested love” and there is less confusion.
Click to expand...
Yep – that’s what I was concerned about. ‘Disinterested’ comes across (at least in this context) as if it were referring to a deistic theological perspective – that is, that God is the ‘divine watchmaker’ who sets creation in motion and then walks away, and does not have a personal relationship with His creation. I think “selfless love” expresses what you’re trying to say in a clearer way… 👍
 
Gorgias said:
Yep – that’s what I was concerned about. ‘Disinterested’ comes across (at least in this context) as if it were referring to a deistic theological perspective – that is, that God is the ‘divine watchmaker’ who sets creation in motion and then walks away, and does not have a personal relationship with His creation. I think “selfless love” expresses what you’re trying to say in a clearer way… 👍
Click to expand...
:coffeeread:
 
Well, I’ve seen this syllogism:

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when he designed human biology.

From that we can conclude that human biology is correctly designed. Contraception, however, seeks to thwart God’s design, a design that is already correct.

However, I should mention that, once before, when I posted that syllogism on this forum, someone was so desperate to keep contraception that she denied the second premise. (She had already conceded the first one.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top