I accept Birth Control, and that's not gonna change!

[Traditional_Ang]

Brothers & Sisters:

I made a Typo in the following statement:

Are you that sure that you’re right and the Church and the Popes who taught this for the past 2000 years are wrong?

Sorry for the mistake and for any misunderstandings which may result.

YBIC, Michael

 

[noma]

1. What is the ecclesial definition of a discipline?

It is well defined by Cardinal Cavagnis: Praxis factorum fidei consona — “conduct conforming itself to faith” (Inst. jur. publ. eccl., Bk. IV, n. 147). As such it is conduct (based necessarily on a moral precept or composite of precepts, and it conforms to the faith, so it includes as a part of it, implicitly at least, statements of faith or composites. So discipline is necessarily composite, faith and morals being something simple.

Faith being “man’s response to God, who reveals himself (via divine revelation, which must appear in accord with the divine nature) and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing mand a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life.” (CCC 26)

So a moral act takes as its parts:

“The object chosen;
the end in view or the intention;
the circumstances of the action.
these make up the sources, or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.” (CCC 1750)

Clearly, morality is not composed of these, these being natural composites, for one cannot exist without the others, the action still being moral (though the contrary, as it concerns absence, need not be the case). These are abstractions of a simple principle.

1. What is the ecclesial definition of a doctrine?
2. What is the ecclesial definition of a dogma?

Dogmas are propositions from the Church, “in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these (doctrine).” (CCC 88)

---

Next, a couple short questions so I can fully understand your responses:

1. What are the limits of a miracle? You cite the inability for the miraculous to accomplish something Art 3, Obj (reply) 2 – I would like to know God’s limits regarding human bodies. It seems God has done more with less (see: Incarnation and Virginal Conception).

A miracle must conform to the nature of God. God created male and female so that they, and they alone, can be open to life in their sexual acts, and that their relationship have a unitive aspect that multiple partners would not tolerate. This is stated simply in Scripture, by the Church Fathers, in the Magisterium, and is clear to good reason.

The virgin birth is in accord with the nature of God. Creating a child to be born from two men is not, and so is not fitting to God. Such an act is not open to life, either by observation of natural law, or by the foreseeable possibilities afforded from divine revelation.

(I should add that the wording I used for the particular section covering homosexuality was improper. It should be stated “unfitting” for God, and not impossible.)

1. Can euthanasia be employed lovingly? Is euthanasia therefore morally neutral? Is subjective intent the sole determining criteria if a particular act is moral or not?

No. The main reason is it deals with a moral statement “thou shall not kill” and a statement of faith “old people are human”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

1. If my purpose is to move a chair, despite my seeing an old woman sitting down concurrent with my desire, can the broken hip resultant be classified as “accidental”? After all, my intention was to move the chair; assume I was fully cognizant of the impending harms which were foreseeable and did follow. Is this “accidental” and therefore morally neutral?

In this case, the harm was foreseen (as you have stated), and was likely. With Birth Control it is neither. Compared to most other medications, it is neither more nor less dangerous. And despite the articles written by NFP and other like sources, I still remain unconvinced of the dangers of contraception. So I would not foresee them at this time. Further, I find them unlikely. Neither can be the case with the chair and the woman.

1. Is intentionally poisoning yourself “morally neutral”, provided that the main intention is that which the poison brings about?

The result is an evil. The result of contraception should be a healthy number of children. Used in this way (see definition of morality above), contraception is a good thing. Poison is a bad thing. (Though it depends on what you mean by poison: chemotherapy can be justified in extreme situations, though it is virtually a poison.)

1. It has not been “infallibly held” that a fetus is a human being, particularly as a matter of faith. This is a matter of science, and the Church has not spoken to the period of ‘ensoulment’. Does this change your analysis of abortion?

That a single celled organism is considered human is a statement of faith, supported by numerous Church Fathers, and declared in the third ecumenical council at Constantinople, that all abortionists were to be treated as murderers.

 

[noma]

<>
6. Jewish authorities no longer sit on Moses’ seat. They do not have the authority. Peter (and his successors) has the keys. Why are you placing so much trust in their exegesis?

Mostly because many apologists do from the other end. It matters not. Neither Jewish authority nor Catholic authority holds a definitive and irreformable interpretation of this passage.

Thank you so much for your excellent questions. I hope to get many many more!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

In Reply to:

Re: I accept Birth Control, and that’s not gonna change! Post #227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1677365&postcount=227

Noma:

The listed Strawmen aren’t what the Church has taught on Artificial Contraception, only what the Church has taught about the results of Artificial Contraception and the Contraceptive Mentallity, which Pope Paul VI listed in Humanae Vitae and which have come true.

As far as The Church is concerned, Contracepting is a Denial of Charity, a withholding by one spouse from the other. St. Paul is clear that spouses may only withhold by mutual consent, and that is to pray for a season, and then they must be completely joined afterwards.

In the Creed, we say that the Holy Spirit is the “Lord and Giver of life.” and Genesis says that God breathed the “Breath of Life” into our nostrils and we we alive. As you know, Marraige is the only Sacrament where the GRACE is conferred by the action of the lay-people and not by the ordained ministers of the Church. The Church has stated the Grace is conferred in the Marital Act, that that is when the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life comes in and confers not only Saving Grace, but also Sanctifying Grace, the Grace needed to deal with each other and with life’s vicissitudes.

When you use Artificial Contraception, you block the Holy Spirit and keep Him from acting and giving you those Graces - This block applies to any other Sacraments you might be receiving. At the same time, you say that you don’t want him in the relationship. Why do you think Catholic Couples who use Artificial Contracepton divorce at virually the same rate as the rest of the world?

If this isn’t enough, read the part of Humanae Vitae about the effects of widespread use of Artificial Contraception and of the Contraceptive Mentallity. Look at our present society and how we treat and regard women and men and their sexuality and then realize that Pope Paul wrote this 38 years ago.

The Old Testament said that if someone told you to do follow God’s Commandments and that his prophecies come true, to do what he says.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[tequilamac]

In Reply to:

Re: I accept Birth Control, and that’s not gonna change! Post #227
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1677365&postcount=227

Noma:

The listed Strawmen aren’t what the Church has taught on Artificial Contraception, only what the Church has taught about the results of Artificial Contraception and the Contraceptive Mentallity, which Pope Paul VI listed in Humanae Vitae and which have come true.

As far as The Church is concerned, Contracepting is a Denial of Charity, a withholding by one spouse from the other. St. Paul is clear that spouses may only withhold by mutual consent, and that is to pray for a season, and then they must be completely joined afterwards.

In the Creed, we say that the Holy Spirit is the “Lord and Giver of life.” and Genesis says that God breathed the “Breath of Life” into our nostrils and we we alive. As you know, Marraige is the only Sacrament where the GRACE is conferred by the action of the lay-people and not by the ordained ministers of the Church. The Church has stated the Grace is conferred in the Marital Act, that that is when the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life comes in and confers not only Saving Grace, but also Sanctifying Grace, the Grace needed to deal with each other and with life’s vicissitudes.

When you use Artificial Contraception, you block the Holy Spirit and keep Him from acting and giving you those Graces - This block applies to any other Sacraments you might be receiving. At the same time, you say that you don’t want him in the relationship. Why do you think Catholic Couples who use Artificial Contracepton divorce at virually the same rate as the rest of the world?

If this isn’t enough, read the part of Humanae Vitae about the effects of widespread use of Artificial Contraception and of the Contraceptive Mentallity. Look at our present society and how we treat and regard women and men and their sexuality and then realize that Pope Paul wrote this 38 years ago.

The Old Testament said that if someone told you to do follow God’s Commandments and that his prophecies come true, to do what he says.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Excellent post. Very well said.

 

[noma]

Why do you think Catholic Couples who use Artificial Contracepton divorce at virually the same rate as the rest of the world?

This is a good question; I do not know. I suspect because the majority of contracepting couples are using contraception for the wrong reasons. And this wide-spread and selfish use of birth control has, as the Pope wisely stated, caused terrible pain in our world, and continues to do so to this day.

 

[tequilamac]

This is a good question; I do not know. I suspect because the majority of contracepting couples are using contraception for the wrong reasons. And this wide-spread and selfish use of birth control has, as the Pope wisely stated, caused terrible pain in our world, and continues to do so to this day.

Unfortunately Noma if we follow this line of thinking that there are right and wrong reasons for using artificial contraception to prevent pregnancy, we move into moral relativism which the Pope has also wisely stated causes terrible pain in this world and continues to do so to this day.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Reply to:

Re: I accept Birth Control, and that’s not gonna change! Post #217
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1675921&postcount=217

Taquilamac:

I’m sorry if I have ever been unduly harsh and disrespectful in correcting a priest or bishop. None of these were ever meant to disrespect the office of priest or bishop. I’ve tried very hard not to question or comment on anyone’s motives, and not to say anything about a priest or bishop that isn’t said on other Catholic media, and almost all of these (with the exception to queries about why I felt I couldn’t “make the Swim” in this Archdiocese) were in response to posters who felt their priests had failed them and the responsibilities of their office or had failed to preach the Gospel or teach the Catholic Faith.

Reading your post, I don’t think that you quite get the miracle and wonder that the Sacred Priesthood is. Please try to put aside our differences, and accept that this is from the Apostolic Fathers. The Mystery of the Priesthood is that God takes sinful men and annoints them with the abilty to unite heaven and earth in the Divine Liturgy (read the Apocalypse of John), to make ordinary bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, and to forgive and to put away our sins in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The miracle in all of this is that God uses sinful men to do an office that originally required the SINLESS ONE born of a Sinless One born without sin.

Because Christ has chosen to use sinful men to replace HE WHO WAS SINLESS, those who take his place will be in error and be sinfull and in need of correction. That’s something we can’t avoid because we’re afraid of disrepecting an office which has alredy been disrepected, esp. if we are trying to get the priest to live up to his calling and to preach the Gospel of New Life in Jesus Christ and to teach the Catholic Faith to the sheep entrusted to his charge.

As you aren’t my spiritual director and this isn’t the topic of this thread, I’m going to ask that this be dropped. I would hope that you would respect that as I’ll try to respect you.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Excellent post. Very well said.

Thank you, Taquilamac.

Good Night.
YBIC, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Unfortunately Noma if we follow this line of thinking that there are right and wrong reasons for using artificial contraception to prevent pregnancy, we move into moral relativism which the Pope has also wisely stated causes terrible pain in this world and continues to do so to this day.

Taquilamac:

Well said. If something blocks the relationship with God, It doesn’t magically stop blocking that relationship because the motives are “unselfish”.

Have a good evening.

YBIC, Michael

 

[RyanL]

It is well defined by Cardinal Cavagnis…

As you have said, eating/not eating meat on Fridays is a discipline. The Church has never called eating meat intrinsically evil. The gravamen comes in disobeying the Church, not in the act itself.

With contraception, the Church has spoken with regards to the act itself, and has pronounced the act “evil”. Do you see the distinction? I’m unaware of any true discipline which the Church has declared the underlying practice to be inherently evil - unless you can think of one, this should strike you as odd. There is clearly a distinction.

So a moral act takes as its parts:…

Excellent. So you see that the subjective portion does not a moral act make – simply because it can be done “lovingly” does not make an objectively bad act either “good” or “neutral”. If it’s objectively bad, it’s always bad. It would be a non sequitor to say that because an inherently bad act can be done lovingly it’s no longer inherently bad. If I can murder “lovingly” (mercy killing of the sick/elderly/disabled), it does not matter – murder is still always wrong.

Same deal here. Simply because you can do it “lovingly” does not make the act morally neutral.

Dogmas are propositions from the Church,…(doctrine)." (CCC 88)

Not all doctrines are dogmas. I haven’t seen you draw this distinction yet, so I’m going to harp on it. They are different, and I believe that if contraception is not a dogma it’s quite certainly a doctrine.

That said, what do you understand to be the ecclesial definition of a doctrine?

…the wording I used… was improper. It should be stated “unfitting” for God, and not impossible…

Ahh. Got it. Makes more sense now. God has kept people from burning, made people walk on water, made people drop dead for no physical reason (apparently), brought folks back to life from the dead – all of these are completely “un-natural”, but I believe God did them. The argument from what is fitting is entirely different, and I’ll accept this conclusion.

No. The main reason is it deals with a moral statement “thou shall not kill” and a statement of faith “old people are human”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

The pill deals with a moral statement “thou shall not kill” and a statement of faith “embryonic humans are human”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

Contraception generally deals with a moral statement “be fruitful and multiply” (note: unconditional command) and a statement of faith “contraceptive intercourse is not fruitful”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

Intercourse deals with a moral statement “what God has joined, let no one separate” and a statement of faith “condoms separate the two becoming one as God intended” (or, if you rather, “sex is joined as unitive and procreative”). Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

Also, I’m not quite sure that it’s a statement of faith to say that “old people are human” – this appears to be an empirically verifiable statement, and therefore does not relate to faith; it’s pure science. I use the terms as you have above only to demonstrate a point.

In this case, the harm was foreseen…and was likely. With Birth Control it is neither.

Not quite. The abortifacient effect is completely foreseen.

I still remain unconvinced of the dangers of contraception.

Which dangers? The medical, social or relational?

The result is an evil. The result of contraception should be a healthy number of children. Used in this way, contraception is a good thing. Poison is a bad thing. (… chemotherapy can be justified… though it is virtually a poison.)

You didn’t answer the question. Is knowingly/intentionally poisoning yourself with the specific intent that the poison have primarily a poisoning effect a moral act? Can you chemically mutilate yourself morally if that is your primary aim?

Chemo is different in that the primary aim is not to poison yourself - it’s to poison the cancer, which is a physical disorder. The unfortunate side effect of poisoning the cancer is that you get poisoned yourself. ABC poisons yourself as the primary aim.

…

 

[RyanL]

That a single celled organism is considered human is a statement of faith, supported by numerous Church Fathers, and declared in the third ecumenical council at Constantinople, that all abortionists were to be treated as murderers.

You are begging the question. It’s not an abortion if the single celled organism is not human. If the single celled organism is not a human, Constantinople does not bear on the question.

The ECFs never discussed single celled organisms, and St. Thomas placed ensoulment at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female. The Church has not officially spoken to the period of ensoulment, so that remains an open question.

Science, however, is quite clear that the organism is human. Faith is not required - knowledge is certain. That said, does this change things for your abortion analysis?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[noma]

As a few points have been made, I will try to be brief, and refer only to the salient material.

The Church has never called eating meat intrinsically evil. The gravamen comes in disobeying the Church, not in the act itself.

And this, I hold, is true for contraception as well. Contraception is incorrectly declared as a moral teaching. I do not believe that the Church’s declaration of contraception being a moral teaching is infallible, nor do I think it correct.

At this time, I cannot think of another like-exception, but give me some time to research this. Even if there were none, absence of a perfect case is not a perfect case for absence.

Excellent. So you see that the subjective portion does not a moral act make – simply because it can be done “lovingly” does not make an objectively bad act either “good” or “neutral”. If it’s objectively bad, it’s always bad.

However, as I have argued above, I believe that violating the Church’s disciplinary teaching concerning contraception to be wrong only because the Church on earth has declared it, and not because it is intrinsically wrong. As such, the Church’s unquestionable moral teaching of Charity can overrule a disciplinary matter, as has happened and I am sure will continue to happen within the Church.

Further, contraception, used properly, bears with it every sign of virtue. It is neither the extreme of preventing all fruit, nor the other extreme of producing fruit without moderation. It merely holds a moderation in the class of sex acts those sex acts likely to produce life. If contraception is used with an openness to the possibility of life (for which there definitely is), it is morally wrong only as a matter of Church disciplinary teaching. So there would be certain cases in which a true, objective and unchangeable moral principle would overshadow the Church’s discipline concerning contraception.

Not all doctrines are dogmas.

I agree.

That said, what do you understand to be the ecclesial definition of a doctrine?

I believed I had done so, though not in a very clear way.

By dogma and doctrine I accept “propositions of truth”, dogma being “truths contained in divine revelation” and doctrine “truths in necessary connection with these”.

The pill deals with a moral statement “thou shall not kill” and a statement of faith “embryonic humans are human”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

After dialoguing with my wife’s gynecologist, as well as doing some research myself into medical journals, I do not see any definitive support of this statement. Though, if you would be willing to supply a peer-reviewed publication that supports your assertion, I will be more willing to take it seriously.

Contraception generally deals with a moral statement “be fruitful and multiply” (note: unconditional command) and a statement of faith “contraceptive intercourse is not fruitful”. Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

Except that I do not think that contraceptive intercourse is not always lacking in being fruitful, and I attribute such statements suggesting that it always is to the misunderstanding by the Church of what contraception is, and how it can be used.

But this misunderstanding has not affected their teachings on faith and morals, even though these not be definitive (since only encyclicals thus far have made declarations concerning all types of contraception). And these moral teachings are that any sexual act with the potential for fruit is fruitful, as with those who lack fertility by an accident of nature can engage in sexual acts, because there is a potential for life in the act. The same is true with those on contraception, as contraception still allows for the possibility of life (it is not 100% ‘effective’), and so only should be used by those open to life.

So I see no conflict with “be fruitful and multiply” and contraception. Neither, do I think, has this been taught definitively by the Church.

It could, though. The simplest moral statement to this effect, that I can think of, would be “All sexual acts with less than a certain chance of producing children is immoral.” The statement “all sexual acts not open to life are immoral” would show the immorality of most contraceptive acts, but not all of them.

 

[noma]

<>
Intercourse deals with a moral statement “what God has joined, let no one separate” and a statement of faith “condoms separate the two becoming one as God intended” (or, if you rather, “sex is joined as unitive and procreative”). Combining these leaves basically no wiggle room.

First, I do not agree that “sex is joined as unitive and procreative” is synonomous with “condoms seperate the two becoming one as God intended.”

Second, even if this were the case, that would only imply the immorality of using condoms for all acts, and not just for some.

As for the statement of faith… I do not accept it as obvious that old people have souls. I do not accept the existence of the soul as at all obvious. Furthermore, even if I did, I would not see that a single-celled embrio would obviously have a soul. These are all statements of faith. These have been declared by the Church.

I think faith is required. Our knowledge (via science) is uncertain. And by the nature of science, will be for the totality of our lives.

And again, thank you for yoru politeness, and for asking excellent and difficult questions. I hope to see many more coming.

 

[AndyF]

noma:

There are many religions that will bend to the wishes of it’s congregation, and there are as many variations out there as there are shoe sizes. They are born on the assumption that God will submit what He forbids through a final democratic screening process for our approval. Religion jumping would be tempting to me on many points, but I know the end result would be that before, instead of meeting my demise solo, I go with a millions others who agree with me. So that isn’t an appealing option either.

In retrospect, I must ask myself, do I really want a religion that conforms to my will? How easy it is to find someone to soothe my concerns. Perhaps the no religion option will allow me to do what I wish, yes that’s it, all I need to do is send a memorandum to God to say I’m out of the picture and settle for temporal death only thank you, and He can keep his rewards.

As an old cogger who has dun that bin there, I discovered the issue is really one of trust, and my wife and I were wrong. Our family planning should have included God’s wishes, not excluded. How did I know a child of mine that missed conception wasn’t destined for some task of the Lord’s? We’ll find out later. We are told not to concern ourselves about tomorrow. We know that having children is the right way to go, so all this info orients us to the final conclusion to leave our future in the hands of God, and to move forward into the unknown doing His will with trust.

AndyF

 

[fix]

And this, I hold, is true for contraception as well. Contraception is incorrectly declared as a moral teaching. I do not believe that the Church’s declaration of contraception being a moral teaching is infallible, nor do I think it correct.

But, that belief cannot be proven true. The universal and ordinary magisterium has said the act is intrinsically evil. It does not need a formal proclaimation to be understood as wrong, binding and infallible.

However, as I have argued above, I believe that violating the Church’s disciplinary teaching concerning contraception to be wrong only because the Church on earth has declared it, and not because it is intrinsically wrong. As such, the Church’s unquestionable moral teaching of Charity can overrule a disciplinary matter, as has happened and I am sure will continue to happen within the Church.

The Church as said it is a matter of natural moral law, not a discipline.

If contraception is used with an openness to the possibility of life (for which there definitely is), it is morally wrong only as a matter of Church disciplinary teaching. So there would be certain cases in which a true, objective and unchangeable moral principle would overshadow the Church’s discipline concerning contraception.

How can an evil means ever be morally licit?

Except that I do not think that contraceptive intercourse is not always lacking in being fruitful, and I attribute such statements suggesting that it always is to the misunderstanding by the Church of what contraception is, and how it can be used.

Is this not the heart of the matter? Who is the ultimate authority?

But this misunderstanding has not affected their teachings on faith and morals, even though these not be definitive (since only encyclicals thus far have made declarations concerning all types of contraception).

Are you claiming here that documents themselves are infallible or non infallible?

 

[cyprian]

There is a natural law that is unwritten but immanent in nature. That things have a teleological character, that they speak of something else, one can know how a thing *should *do or *should *be used by examining it’s end and the normalty of it’s function-*ing. *There is an order or a disposition that the human reason may discover and according to which the human will must act to accord itself with the necessary ends of the human being, our most fundamental dutie(s), and this being co-extensive with morality. Knowledge of the natural law varies throughout humanityand according to individuals’ capacities and abilities and so there is always growth (or should be as necessary) in an individuals moral awareness. As such we are then able to reply to the challenge set before us that there is no such moral or natural law. And as this law(s) is a progression, it can never be exhausted in any particular articulation. And so the goal ("be ye perfect…) our goal, is moral and spiritual perfection, never realised here, but to our end. So don’t we therefore have obligations for the good of all? The person is a whole, is an object of dignity and must be treated as an end, and so our acts need to correspond to this end, our end, or the potential thing that has it’s end as pre-determined by God, it’s outcome to be good as it corresponds to it’s end. Birth control, as it’s end, destroys that which would have been, it eliminates the potential of the good act.

peace

 

[DailyBread]

I don’t know what others have said in this thread (too many to read), but with the issue about the bcp causing early chemical abortion, IT is TRUE! The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed pregnancy to the moment of implantation to bend to the wishes of Population Control Groups who wanted to get the Pill legalized but knew they would have problems with it also preventing implantation and causing abortions (at that time illegal). So they knew they would have to get the word pregnancy changed so that abortion (termination of pregnancy) would not be considered the case. This is semantics basically and the idea that they tried to define pregnancy based on implantation because then you start measuring HCG levels is ridiculous move. They knew about this early on and yet the word pregnancy for awhile remained the moment of conception. It was only changed for political reasons. The idea of one being pregnant originally was a means to distinguish anaimals that held their young and animals that did not.
Some ob/gyns will say well we don’t call petri dishes pregnant when it has a fertilized ovum in there. Well a woman’s body is not analogous to a petri dish because it attempts to assist the zygote in the process of implantation (ie cilia in fallopian tube beat). A petri dish is not holding and actively nourshing its young inside of it. It is an inanimate object like an incubator which we dont say is pregnant either. Basically ACOG is on weak ground with silly analogies that fail and really had a hidden agenda in corroboration with Population Control Agencies. So of course your gyn is going to say that it does not cause an abortion, but he is wrong medically and in his ethical understanding.
I have never found an explanation for the 1965 change that is really based upon science, science was just usurped poorly for the sake of justifying legalization of the pill.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Fix & cyprian
In your posts you both mention Natural Law as a base. When I had albeit limited training on Natural Law, it would not fit this post. As cyprian accurately mentioned not all natural law is universal, ie one always requires natural law contain self defense but whether and how natural law allows the taking of another’s life varies greatly. Also, Catholic natural law focuses on the moral component while others often focus on the common desires of man. Given this condition I can not rectify the “natural law” (even Catholic) being a justification for the ABC ban can you elaborate?

 

[fix]

Hi Fix & cyprian
In your posts you both mention Natural Law as a base. When I had albeit limited training on Natural Law, it would not fit this post. As cyprian accurately mentioned not all natural law is universal, ie one always requires natural law contain self defense but whether and how natural law allows the taking of another’s life varies greatly. Also, Catholic natural law focuses on the moral component while others often focus on the common desires of man. Given this condition I can not rectify the “natural law” (even Catholic) being a justification for the ABC ban can you elaborate?

…To put it briefly, those who accept contraception recognize that it
requires an anti-procreative choice, the choice to set aside or get rid of
or destroy fertility and the openness of the act of coition to the good of
transmitting human life. Yet they argue that this choice is morally good
“because” the procreative aspect of our sexuality is not, for them, a
personal good but rather a merely functional good dependent for its “human,
personal” goodness on other aspects of the human person.32…

The Church and human intelligence both insist that the human body, bodily
life, and the procreative dimension of our sexuality are “personal” goods,
goods of the human person, not goods for the human person. Human
intelligence insists on this…

The choice to contracept, therefore, is a morally wrong choice because it
is the choice to set aside or destroy something that is really good, namely
our own fertility and the openness of the act of sexual union to the great
good of transmitting human life.38 It is just as wrong to set aside this
good as it is to set aside the good of friendship in the act of sexual
union, a point that Pope Paul VI makes quite effective in his perceptive
account of the meaning of marital life and of the marital act.39

Contraceptive intercourse is, in short, an instrumentalist or pragmatic
devaluing of the great human good of fertility and of openness to the
goodness of human life in its transmission. It is thus an anti-life sort of
act, one incompatible with a love for all that is good and with a love for
human life itself.

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT