HV, sex and hell

[LittleDeb]

Do you have any evidence to support this? Something tells me there would be more pregnancies if they weren’t using birth control.

Which statistics do you want? Do you want the ones that can be twisted to support contraception or do you want the statistics that are just plain inaccurate? Do you want the words “unplanned” in your statistic? Do you want the words “out-of-wedlock” instead? How about the ones where “birth control” fails? One of the biggest misnomers of the 20th century was that horrible term. Considering that the term, “birth control” runs the gamut from abortion all the way to total lifelong abstinence, it is a term that can be misused to fit every purpose.

It is the surrender of self-control that causes the results. If you want to shoot marriage in the foot, contraception is a sure fire way to do it. One statistic that is constant across all religions in western culture…at least half of all marriages where the couple is contracepting will end in divorce. Of those couples not contracepting, less than 5% will divorce.

 

[mtr01]

Do you have any evidence to support this? Something tells me there would be more pregnancies if they weren’t using birth control.

Something tells me that there would be a lot less sex out of wedlock if there was no contraception.

 

[jmcrae]

Which is exactly why contraception is such a great benefit to society, because it helps to make sure children are born to stable families within marraige. If it wasn’t for contraception, you would have a lot more babies being born to unstable families and out of wedlock.

The reality is that what we have right now is the majority of stable couples becoming infertile and not having children at all, because of their responsible use of artificial birth control, while those who have sex out of wedlock are the ones having kids, because although they are relying on birth control to save them from themselves, the same issues of irresponsibility that move them to have sex out of wedlock also prevent them from using birth control in the disciplined manner that causes it to work - a single girl who goes on the pill because she fears that her habit of drinking will cause her to behave less than rationally with men also behaves less than rationally when she is hung over the next morning, and often forgets or neglects to take the pill at the same time of day every morning - thus, it doesn’t work, and she ends up pregnant out of wedlock.

And when sex is a spur-of-the-moment act of passion between near-strangers, who is going to want to ruin the romance of the moment by mentioning a condom?

 

[onmyknees]

Why would God make sex feel so good if we were only supposed to use sex to procreate? If he is responsible for making it feel so good, then it is only logical that we are supposed to enjoy it.

I enjoy sex with my wife and our goal for using contraception is to avoid pregnancy. We don’t want kids yet and will be better prepared to raise kids when we are older./QUO

Why do you think that divorce, single parent households, abortions, and poverty all increased when contraception became widely used in the late 60’s? Look also at the decay of morality in our society. The Catholic Church raises marital, sexual relations to a sacrament. The partners become one flesh by the love giving(unitive)\life giving(procreative) act. Natural family planning is 98% effective when used correctly. It aids man in self mastery, self restraint and self discipline. This self discipline flows into all areas of their family life and helps in solving all kinds of problems and fosters love and consideration. It strengthens the virtues of the human person. To control ones passions through periodic abstinence is a means of affirming respect for ones partner. This is not easy but what is love anyways? It is a selfless act of giving. Artificial birth control allows the couple to avoid this self discipline and it uses chemicals and or barriers that say no to God and take Him out of the act. With npf the couple remains open to life. How do you know that you will be better prepared to raise children when you are older? May I suggest that you trust in God.

 

[JReducation]

Before Christ came, everyone went to Hell - no exceptions.

Wait a minute! Stop before you get into serious trouble with the Church. This is contrary to Church teaching. The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ spans all of time. In fact, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which occurred before the birth of Jesus, was made possible only by the Cross of Christ. For in God there is no time.

Don’t forget that we do believe the prophets, patriarchs, Kings David and Solomon and even Jesus’ grandparents to be saints.

Where did you get this idea that everyone who was born before Christ went to hell?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[jmcrae]

Don’t forget that we do believe the prophets, patriarchs, Kings David and Solomon and even Jesus’ grandparents to be saints.

Where did you get this idea that everyone who was born before Christ went to hell?

The Catechism. They became Saints after the Resurrection, which is when they were released from Hell, as we see in the Apostles’ Creed, and also in I think the First Epistle of Peter.

 

[JReducation]

The Catechism. They became Saints after the Resurrection, which is when they were released from Hell, as we see in the Apostles’ Creed, and also in I think the First Epistle of Peter.

I see where you’re going with this. The “hell” that is in the Creed, is not the same Hell as the place where souls are damned.

This term was from the an ancient formula that referred to the place of the dead. It is not the place of the damned. They are two different concepts, both very ancient and both use similar language but with very differnt meaning.

Those souls who were in the place of the dead were not damned. We are not even sure how this mystery works, except that the Fathers of the Church tell us that Christ’s death and redemption spans all time and embraces all.

There was redemption before the crucifixion, if we look at it from within our dimension that is limited by time and space. The best proof is the Immaculate Conception. Without Christ’s saving act, Anne would not have been able to conceive an Immaculate daughter. It was Christ’s saving acgt that made this possible, befoe it actually happened in human history.

This is possible because God exists outside of time and space.

Hope this clears up the confusion between the place of the damned and the place of the dead.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[larsegarots]

It is the surrender of self-control that causes the results.

If God had not intended for us to enjoy sex, he would not have made it so pleasurable. Contraception provides a responsible way for my wife and I to have sex without having children yet.

If you want to shoot marriage in the foot, contraception is a sure fire way to do it.

This is ridiculous.

…at least half of all marriages where the couple is contracepting will end in divorce.

Half of all marriages end in divorce, period. The fact that they are also using contraception is likely, since most of the people in this country use it. It would be a logical fallacy to draw a cause and effect relationship.

Of those couples not contracepting, less than 5% will divorce.

What makes you say this?

 

[larsegarots]

Something tells me that there would be a lot less sex out of wedlock if there was no contraception.

Just because something is available doesn’t mean it is a crime or sinful. It is the actions of the person using it. What you said is no different than, “there would be a lot less obesity if there was no food.” While that may be true, it doesn’t make “food” bad.

 

[larsegarots]

The reality is that what we have right now is the majority of stable couples becoming infertile

Is that your personal belief? It is contrary to the evidence.

“Fertility rates have likewise risen in recent decades for married American women.” profam.org/pub/nr/nr.2104.htm

 

[larsegarots]

Why do you think that divorce, single parent households, abortions, and poverty all increased when contraception became widely used in the late 60’s?

There have been many changes since the 60’s. To pin all of these on contraception is a shock to me, and impossible for you to prove. It would be hard to even make a remotely logical argument that contraception is the cause.

Look also at the decay of morality in our society.

Society is not perfect, but I think the morals today have evolved to become closer to Jesus’ teachings than any point in history. It wasn’t too long ago that slavery was legal, there was killing in the name of Christianity, multi-racial marriages were illegal, women were not treated equally, etc.

How do you know that you will be better prepared to raise children when you are older? May I suggest that you trust in God.

My wife and I have discussed this and we both feel we’ll be better prepared at least 4 years from now. There were many factors, some of which included finances and where we live (we are moving in 2 years). I do have trust in God that we should be waiting.

 

[ethelzguy]

By the churches own teachings, a majority of its members are in mortal sin (condemned).

And, by that same Church’s teaching, those who practiced ABC can go to confession and avoid condemnation.

 

[NoelFitz]

Della
many thanks for your post.

I am struggling with various issues.

Is artificial contraception defined/declared infallibly as grave matter?

If so are those who practise/advocate it Catholics.

As I have said before in the west the majority of so-called Catholics reject the teaching about contraception.

 

[JimO]

However it is clear that most Catholics in the US, Europe and Australasia reject the Church’s teaching on contraception.

Are most of them in sin? Will most of them end up in hell? Can the Catholic Church continue to claim those who reject its teaching as members?

The debate needs to continue.

Honestly, I don’t think that most realize that it is a mortal sin. So many Catholics in the U.S. don’t know the difference between dogma and Church discipline. For example, they equate the issue of contraception (dogmatic prohibition) and married priests (a Church discipline). We are obliged to agree with dogmatic teaching but are free to disagree with non-dogmatic matters, such as whether priests should be allowed to marry or whether limbo exists. This means that many, although living in sin, might not be in mortal sin. That is why purgatory is such a blessing.

In the end, we have to trust in God’s mercy. He knows the heart and for those who are truly ignorant of the truth, He knows how they would respond if they were fully aware.

 

[jmcrae]

And, by that same Church’s teaching, those who practiced ABC can go to confession and avoid condemnation.

Only if they firmly intend to sin no more. You can’t be absolved of a sin that you are actually planning to commit again.

 

[JReducation]

Only if they firmly intend to sin no more. You can’t be absolved of a sin that you are actually planning to commit again.

I would just add to this that there is an important point in moral theology that must be considered.

Even though something is objectively evil, the subjective culpability may be diminished or completely absent.

We don’t know everyone’s heart and mind. To argue how many people will go to hell because they use artificial birth control is almost an academic argument. The judgement of a soul is made on the basis of culpability and the soul is judged not on a single act, but on an entire life.

Everytime someone takes a birth control pill she does not commit a mortal sin. Let’s say that a woman takes a pill a day. She has not commited 30 mortal sins in one month. Objectively speaking, the material sin is using the birth control pill. That is one mortal sin. It is an ongoing situation, but it is one sin, because it is one act.

In God’s mercy and the mercy of the Church, that one act is put into the context of an entire life. There are questions that we cannot answer on a forum. What has moved this person to use artificial birth control? Does the person fully comprehend the gravity of the matter, not just heard the words? Trust me, I minister to people who have cognitive processing difficulties. They can repeat anything that Aristotle wrote with great precision. Do they understand it in its fullness? No. The same happens to people who do not have these processing difficulties. Sometimes people don’t get it.

One must also look at the person’s circumstances. There are people out there who know the Church’s teaching on artificial brith control and they put themselves at the mercy of God, because their circumstances are so difficult for them that they feel overwhelmed. They take their chances in the hope that God will understand them and be merciful. God will not deny his mercy. Is this the best way to proceed? No. Does it happen? Yes.

We must also understand that there are other health reasons why people use birth control pills such as regulating the menstrual cycle. The side effect is going to be the inability to get pregnant.

The list goes on. Then there are those who just do it out of purely selfish reasons. Here is where you have an objective state of grave sin.

We can’t always make blanket statements about the soul. We can make objective statements about a material act and make sure that readers to these forums understand that these are objective statements and that we’re judging a material act, not individuals.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[nice2000]

Why do most Catholics in the west reject Humanae Vitae?

Are most of these living in sin?

My permanent problem is that most Catholics appear to be heading for hell, either through non-attendance at Sunday Mass or by rejecting the Church’s teaching on sex.

I cannot understand how a loving God can create so many people who, it seems, will end up being punished for all eternity.

What’s Humanae Vitae?

 

[Joe_5859]

What’s Humanae Vitae?

This is Humanae Vitae.

It’s an encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI written in 1968 that reaffirmed the Church’s teaching against artificial birth control (among other things).

 

[nice2000]

I see where you’re going with this. The “hell” that is in the Creed, is not the same Hell as the place where souls are damned.

This term was from the an ancient formula that referred to the place of the dead. It is not the place of the damned. They are two different concepts, both very ancient and both use similar language but with very differnt meaning.

Those souls who were in the place of the dead were not damned. We are not even sure how this mystery works, except that the Fathers of the Church tell us that Christ’s death and redemption spans all time and embraces all.

There was redemption before the crucifixion, if we look at it from within our dimension that is limited by time and space. The best proof is the Immaculate Conception. Without Christ’s saving act, Anne would not have been able to conceive an Immaculate daughter. It was Christ’s saving acgt that made this possible, befoe it actually happened in human history.

This is possible because God exists outside of time and space.

Hope this clears up the confusion between the place of the damned and the place of the dead.

Fraternally,

JR

I didn’t realize that.
So the Hell that Jesus saw and descended into, is not the same Hell that Satan(Lucifer and his Angels) went to?

Does this means there are two different types of Hell?

One for the dead and one for the damned?

 

[NoelFitz]

Jmcrae

I read your most recent post.

I think I disagree with it.

However I read your account of your faith journey and was very moved by it.

I had not realized you were female and Canadian. Nearly 14000 posts is an impressive amount.

Your journey to Catholicisam makes me feel guilty about the way I have accepted it since birth and never make the fundamental decisions you have made.

Thank you so much.