How can condoms be an obstacle to God?

[Chantal25]

So natural birth control is consider as abstinence? Maybe, i can understand their logic now.

Thank you!

p.s. I would have think that this way was a way to cheat God.

 

[abon12]

You can never do evil to do good. Condoms, Contraception are used to prevent life. Life is sacred. To prevent life, thus, is an evil.

How about not having sex?

How about loving each other?

Remember lust? It’s one of the 7 deadly sins.

Love is not lust.

Humans were made to procreate. To prevent life, is sacrilegious and against God.

While Natural Family Planning is working with God’s plan. Not against it. Not preventing it.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

well first of all I heard someone saying condoms are unnatural, well whats the meaning of natural?

It’s actually an interesting question. There are primitive nomadic tribes, such as the Zo’e, whose woman use natural substances (such as tree bark) to change their cycles and avoid pregnancy. They do this to avoid being pregnant when they are traveling.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What the Church actually teaches is tha teach act of intercourse must be properly ordered in the way God created it (unaltered).

Interestingly enough, that’s incredibly concise and easy to understand. It’s the attempts to explain this in detail that leave people confused on the issue.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I just posted this exactly on the other thread, but thought I’d share it here as well:

I’m going to quote the Catechism here:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.

OKAY - so that’s INTENT… we agree that INTENT is important. You can have good intent when approaching barrier use, and use can have bad intent when approaching NFP use…
INTENT is definitely an important aspect here…
BUT, the Catechism goes on… and this speaks to the MEANS:

Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”157

BOTH intent and means must be satisfied for the practice of avoiding conception to be moral.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle… involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[Gaerteuth]

Condoms have a pretty high rate of failure. I’ve heard 15% and 1:12 (8.33%). NFP has a failure rate approaching zero in areas where it is used correctly and exclusively. NFP is NOT the rhythm method (very high failure rate)! The problem with NFP is the “risky” days but if you avoid intercourse on those days you won’t get pregnant. It’s math, not magic. Sperm and egg cells do not live all month and there are days where a woman is not in the fertile part of her cycle and any sperm will die before the egg is viable.

Then in what way is that any different than man-made contraception?
It meets all of the usual criteria of why the Church disapproves of man-made contraception.

-It takes advantage of the way a woman’s reproductive system works
-It willfully prevents a child from conception
-It makes sex about the sex (which shouldn’t even be a problem)

So what makes NFP so special to the Church?

It makes the couple abstain for a period of time in which they can develop sexual frustration and become tense, putting a filter on their love which God meant to be vibrant.

If God is opposed to contraception but encodes it in the natural body, then he is contradicting himself.

If God is in agreement with contraception, yet his Church does not, then the Church is misrepresenting him.

If God is both in agreement with contraception and his church is in agreement with it, then what problem is there?

If God is opposed to contraception and yet it exists, then whence cometh NFP Contraception?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Then in what way is that any different than man-made contraception?
It meets all of the usual criteria of why the Church disapproves of man-made contraception.

-It takes advantage of the way a woman’s reproductive system works
-It willfully prevents a child from conception
-It makes sex about the sex (which shouldn’t even be a problem)

So what makes NFP so special to the Church?

It makes the couple abstain for a period of time in which they can develop sexual frustration and become tense, putting a filter on their love which God meant to be vibrant.

If God is opposed to contraception but encodes it in the natural body, then he is contradicting himself.

If God is in agreement with contraception, yet his Church does not, then the Church is misrepresenting him.

If God is both in agreement with contraception and his church is in agreement with it, then what problem is there?

If God is opposed to contraception and yet it exists, then whence cometh NFP Contraception?

NFP is not contraception.
Contraception is altering the act of sex… and still having sex… altering it so that no conception can occur.
NFP is choosing when to have normal, regular, as-designed-by-God sexual relations.

Two very different concepts.

Yes, it’s okay to “control” (we have free will!) when a married couple would like, or not like, to conceive. INTENT and MEANS both play a role (see my post above) here…
INTENT must not be selfish, etc, etc…
MEANS must not alter the act.

 

[aspirant]

Condoms are … artificial, unnatural, and they are directly against God’s will. With NFP, there is nothing unnatural, nothing artificial, and nothing against His will.

well first of all I heard someone saying condoms are unnatural, well whats the meaning of natural?

Here’s some crucial info from the other thread:

The Church’s teaching is not based on a simple distinction between “natural” and “artificial.” The Church does not oppose artifice as such. Pacemakers and prosthetic limbs are artificial, but they support the healthy function of the body and its systems, and that can be very good. Preserving, maintaining, improving, and restoring the healthy function of the body and its systems, to the extent possible, is a good thing. Contraceptives (such as condoms, sterilization, IUDs, etc.) used for contraceptive purposes do not do this: they deliberately impede or frustrate rather than assist the procreative capacity of the body. It’s very important to understand that the problem with contraception is not simply that it’s artificial.

That said, one of the many benefits of NFP is that because it generally uses no unnecessary drugs, chemicals, hormones, or contraceptive devices, its use produces significantly less waste that may be disruptive to the environment.

i feel that natural birth prevention and condom is the same.

I suspect that you, like I, can tell the difference between “having sex with a condom” and “not having sex.” And the difference is a lot more than words.

 

[twoangels]

The explanation you were given was faulty.

What the Church teaches is that if we are to engage in the act, we have to allow that act to be what it is. Sex is sacred and our bodies are temples of the holy spirit. As such, we have an obligation to honor their design and the purposes of sex.

Think of it this way. Imagine that we developed technologies to control the weather. Chemicals were sent into the atmosphere to deter the development of rain clouds. Whole cities were encased in their own green houses where, except for imperfections in the design and breaks in the structure, snow, cold or rain were rarely experienced. If they were experienced it was by isolated direct choice. “I’m getting water to irregate my little garden.”

You have to ask yourself, what would happen to the culture? How prepared would they be when a portion of the glass ceiling broke and the rain fell on them or when there was breakthrough rain regardless of the chemicals in the atmosphere? What would their attitude to the outer elements and God’s natural design be? Would they see the rain as a gift? Would they appreciate God’s design or would they hold tightly to their own little controlled world? How much appreciation would they have for well built homes? Would they repair their roofs? Would an “unplanned” rainful be dreadfully devestating? Probably!

Now, our fertilities is that with which a new human person is created. Humanity is God’s special creation. Only we are created in God’s image and likeness. As such, the means by which we are created is sacred. To view procreation which such severe hostility, is to view humanity hostilly. It is to fail to recognize the fullness of human dignity. In honoring that, we see sex as sacred. We see our fertility as a blessing and we respect God’s design. Rather than seeking to completely reinvent God’s design to suit our own wants and desires, we accomodate our lives and our culture to his design.

NFP is thus like the weather forecast. You modify your life according to God’s design, rather than attempting to modify God’s design according to your own will. Yes, certainly God can break through the glass and cause the rain to forcibly pour down upon you, but your actions still are actively opposed to God’s design.

 

[AllEars]

The ends do not justify the means. In other areas of our life, this is fairly self-evident. For example, if my goal is to feed my family, what difference does it make if I buy the food or steal it? My goal is a moral good- feeding my family. Well, I think you can see pretty quickly that the means you use do make a difference, it is not just the end that must be a good but also how you arrive at it.

That is a poor explanation (although a common one) and not the basis of Church teaching.

What the Church actually teaches is tha teach act of intercourse must be properly ordered in the way God created it (unaltered). God created intercourse for unity of spouses and procreation. We are not free to seek one dimension without the other present.

The choice comes in whether or not to have intercourse. I can choose to be intimate with my spouse, or not. If I choose intimacy, it must not be disordered, this is a grave offense against God-- the author and authority over our sexuality.

If choose to have intercourse and alter it by an act of my will to render it sterile, I have violated God’s established order for intercourse. I am not free to treat his gift inappropriately and in any manner I choose. I must respect sexuality and its powerful significance in God’s plan.

So, I can choose to engage intercourse, or refrain from it. NFP is simply information that can help me decide whether to have intercourse or not, based on whether I am trying to achieve a pregnancy or avoid one at that time.

What I cannot do is dishonor God by disordering his gift of the marital embrace.

:clapping: There have been several very good, well thought-out responses so far, however this in particular really resonates with me and makes very good sense. I think it’s finally starting to click. Thanks for that!

 

[luis39]

First, AllEars is asking the question and looking for the answer from the theological standpoint of the Catholic Church, not for a Darwinistic answer that promotes moral relativism.

Second, I notice that you list yourself as an athiest, as such, you don’t believe in God. Since you don’t believe in God, then it goes without saying that you don’t believe the Bible is Divinely inspired. But if you are HONESTLY looking for answers and the truth to your question(s) there are plenty of places in the Bible about having sex without being open to having children and why it’s wrong. You would be better served to refrain from stating with authority what you think God said/did not say until you have read and comprehended the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Lastly, I may be mistaken, but it appears as if your post is nothing more than “trolling”.

pax vobiscum

Its funny how you all guys, just argue using the bible as an argument, I mean like you were so sure that its divinely inspired. Have you guys asked yourself and made some real investigation to prove that? I ve done it, the bible has been edited a lot of times. Guess who did that?. Theres prove that constantine edited the bible to help unify the roman empire, and theres a lot of prove a lot of other governors did that.

I know you guys are probably thinking thats not true, “no way I ve read the bible and I “felt” the word of god in there and by living following their rules I ve been as happy as never”. Well guess why? its meant to be felt like that, to “ease” your life, because yeah its an easy path, and I get why you guys follow the easy path, but come on.

Use logic not a book, you guys cant know for certain now that the book its edited or not, I know it was, theres prove of it, and all your moral constructions are based on self-interest of old monarchs. Anyway you guys feel probably so sure its the word of god, just because you feel it, try to understand that how you feel about stuff can not be arguments, your feelings towards the “bad” acts are learned.

I mean even if your god existed its ridicoulous you guys think its a “nice” god, a forgiving and understanding god. If it existed and all the bible were true word of god, still god would be an *******, who the **** is jesus to come and tell you that if you dont love him you ll go to hell.

Hear that well, imagine someone coming and telling you: “if you dont love me more than your sons, your family, your friends, and everyone you know you ll go to hell and burn for eternity”. Sounds like an ******* to me.

 

[Gaerteuth]

INTENT must not be selfish, etc, etc…
MEANS must not alter the act.

I can’t see any compelling reason why intent and means are so important to preserve.

The only commonplace reasoning I’ve seen for it is:

Revelation (which cannot be trusted)
Tradition (which is only meaningful to it’s followers, completely subjective)
Authority (which is in itself empty)

There have been some who try to use real arguments for your cause, but I haven’t found one that don’t collapse under the weight of their own assumptions.

God made sex for human enjoyment and happiness, yet the Church is trying to regulate it and traditionalize it and get into everybody’s sex life, speculating over ridiculous details.

 

[Soren_Itenu]

I can’t see any compelling reason why intent and means are so important to preserve.

The only commonplace reasoning I’ve seen for it is:

Revelation (which cannot be trusted)
Tradition (which is only meaningful to it’s followers, completely subjective)
Authority (which is in itself empty)

There have been some who try to use real arguments for your cause, but I haven’t found one that don’t collapse under the weight of their own assumptions.

God made sex for human enjoyment and happiness, yet the Church is trying to regulate it and traditionalize it and get into everybody’s sex life, speculating over ridiculous details.

You’ve become the very thing you criticize: you, too, have made assumptions with that last sentence.

 

[Soren_Itenu]

luis39:

I know you guys are probably thinking thats not true, “no way I ve read the bible and I “felt” the word of god in there and by living following their rules I ve been as happy as never”. Well guess why? its meant to be felt like that, to “ease” your life, because yeah its an easy path, and I get why you guys follow the easy path, but come on.

LOL!!! Read my sig file.

 

[Soren_Itenu]

AllEars,

You’re definitely all ears! Good for you for opening your mind and heart to understand this difficult, nuanced teaching. I wish I had your humility. You’re a great example to me! Thank you.

 

[Gaerteuth]

In short, it comes down to this:

Each sexual act must be open to the possibility of new life.

You seriously think that God has nothing better to worry about than making sure that you constantly live in anticipation of a screaming infant?

That it’s “God’s Will” that we push out as many babies as nature randomly chooses to give us in our lifetime?

 

[Gaerteuth]

You’ve become the very thing you criticize: you, too, have made assumptions with that last sentence.

When I say that God’s purpose for sex is for human’s enjoyment, that’s an assumption, in everything but that there are church documents backing that up. You may be perhaps familiar with the Bible.

When I say that the church is poking itself into everyone’s sex lives and trying to regulate everything about the human condition, that’s not an assumption.

That’s a little thing I like to call an “observable phenomena”.

 

[Sillara]

When I say that God’s purpose for sex is for human’s enjoyment, that’s an assumption, in everything but that there are church documents backing that up. You may be perhaps familiar with the Bible.

When I say that the church is poking itself into everyone’s sex lives and trying to regulate everything about the human condition, that’s not an assumption.

That’s a little thing I like to call an “observable phenomena”.

As a convert from a Bible-only Protestant background, why, yes, I am familiar with the Bible, including the story of Onan and God’s first command to mankind.

So, umm, sex is made for making babies AND for the unity of the spouses.

Your statement that “the church is poking itself into everyone’s sex lives and trying to regulate everything about the human condition” is your interpretation.

Furthermore, your earlier statement, quote below, is extremely offensive.

You seriously think that God has nothing better to worry about than making sure that you constantly live in anticipation of a screaming infant?

Firstly, as a Catholic, I do believe that the state of my eternal soul matters to God, and that the proper use of my sexuality will most definitely affect the state of my eternal soul, so yes, He cares about it.

Furthermore, as a mother of six, I find it highly offensive that one would describe my life as one of living in anticipation of a screaming infant.

Infants do not always scream (though my second was a bit colicky, I admit), and … they grow up. My oldest is 14. Not only is she not a “screaming infant”, but she is a brilliant, kind-hearted, beautiful young woman whom I am privileged to know. It is a wonderful thing to be a parent, and even when it is hard (I have had extremely difficult pregnancies, have nearly died in childbirth, and have had two of my six children have to spend time in the NICU, particularly #2, who was born two months prematurely), no one said that life was going to be easy.

Currently, given my age and my husband’s and my combined fertility, I find it unlikely I would conceive again. If I did, we would be happy about it. If I don’t, we will be happy about it.

At no point are we living in anticipation of a screaming infant.

 

[Gaerteuth]

I meant no personal offense, but I am willing to admit this:

I almost always tend be prideful and blunt.

That’s something I have to fix within myself that this church is capable of helping me with.

But I have to make the point, that the story of Onan is corresponding to Jewish tradition, Christian revelation and, in many states, government authority.

All 3 of these things to not constitute sound reasoning.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I meant no personal offense, but I am willing to admit this:

I almost always tend be prideful and blunt.

That’s something I have to fix within myself that this church is capable of helping me with.

But I have to make the point, that the story of Onan is corresponding to Jewish tradition, Christian revelation and, in many states, government authority.

All 3 of these things to not constitute sound reasoning.

Well, I can tell you right now, that if you continue to be uncharitable on this forum, you won’t last long. I’ve never seen such a heavily modded forum as this one. You stuck your nose into another poster’s thread and are now disrupting it as is the declared atheist luis39. Although I don’t see you getting asterisked in your posts… You’re a bit ahead of him on that score.

I called myself “forthright” when I first got here, and I got sanctioned A LOT for it. Calm down, stop confronting people so vigorously, mind your manners, and you’ll learn a lot. Keep being uncharitable and it’s hasta luego my friend.