Inconsistency Regarding Artificial Birth Control?

[Michaelo]

Are Catholics being inconsistent by not fervently striving to make ABC illegal as they have with same sex marriage?

 

[ljubim]

I think that gay marriage is more publically discussed, so Catholics who speak up for what they believe in obviously have more opportunity for rebuttal.

 

[fermat]

Are Catholics being inconsistent by not fervently striving to make ABC illegal as they have with same sex marriage?

Interesting question. For starters, as far as I know, ABC has never against the law. Second, I don’t think homosexual marriage has ever been objectively illegal. Homosexual intercourse has been in some places, but I don’t know that marriage has been.

I imagine that it is simply not pragmatic to try and outlaw ABC. Homosexual ‘marriage’ (or abortion for that matter) actual stand a reasonable chance of being changed. I couldn’t ever imagine a situation where you could find a reason to outlaw ABC, given our culture’s views.

 

[1ke]

Are Catholics being inconsistent by not fervently striving to make ABC illegal as they have with same sex marriage?

Perhaps you are unaware that contraception WAS illegal in this country until 1965 via state laws, and that Catholics fought against its legalization.

However, a Supreme Court ruling on privacy-- Griswold v Conneticut-- took away our right to address this through legislation. This case invented the “right to privacy” and was the crack in the dam that allowed Roe v Wade to be decided within 10 years.

 

[1ke]

Interesting question. For starters, as far as I know, ABC has never against the law.

Wrong.

It most definitely was against the law. It was both illegal at a state level in many states, and illegal to transport/sell across state lines at the federal level (via the Comstock laws).

Every Christian church taught it was immoral until 1930. Within 30 years of the break in Christian denominations on this issue the Supreme Court overturned laws outlawing contraception as unconsitutional based on the invented “right to privacy.” That started the avalanche that led to Roe v Wade and the 40 million abortions per year we now have in the US.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Interesting question. For starters, as far as I know, ABC has never against the law. Second, I don’t think homosexual marriage has ever been objectively illegal. Homosexual intercourse has been in some places, but I don’t know that marriage has been.

I imagine that it is simply not pragmatic to try and outlaw ABC. Homosexual ‘marriage’ (or abortion for that matter) actual stand a reasonable chance of being changed. I couldn’t ever imagine a situation where you could find a reason to outlaw ABC, given our culture’s views.

The problem is that Homosexual or Gay “marriage” is something certain people are trying to invent, it has never existed.

 

[fermat]

Wrong.

It most definitely was against the law. It was both illegal at a state level in many states, and illegal to transport/sell across state lines at the federal level (via the Comstock laws).

Every Christian church taught it was immoral until 1930. Within 30 years of the break in Christian denominations on this issue the Supreme Court overturned laws outlawing contraception as unconsitutional based on the invented “right to privacy.” That started the avalanche that led to Roe v Wade and the 40 million abortions per year we now have in the US.

That just goes to show how easily an evil habit can become normalized. When my wife and I got married, ABC was just assumed. It is a shame how we went from ABC being illegal to a point where we won’t fund abstinence only education.

 

[Mickey]

If memory serves, condoms were illegal in 30 states until the 1920’s. However, exceptions were often made for use as a disease preventative.

 

[Drawmack]

Interesting question. For starters, as far as I know, ABC has never against the law.

You should do a little more research. Many types of ABC have been against the law at various points in history (with the possible exception of the condom) and every type of chemical birth control was against the law at some point. As a point of fact, Sanger campaigned for the legalization of the pill prior to campaigning for the legalization of abortion.

Second, I don’t think homosexual marriage has ever been objectively illegal. Homosexual intercourse has been in some places, but I don’t know that marriage has been.

What does objectively illegal mean?

 

[Drawmack]

The problem is that Homosexual or Gay “marriage” is something certain people are trying to invent, it has never existed.

Really?

 

[Michaelo]

Perhaps you are unaware that contraception WAS illegal in this country until 1965 via state laws, and that Catholics fought against its legalization.

However, a Supreme Court ruling on privacy-- Griswold v Conneticut-- took away our right to address this through legislation. This case invented the “right to privacy” and was the crack in the dam that allowed Roe v Wade to be decided within 10 years.

I am aware of that, but are Catholics now excused from fighting its current legality? To be consistent, it seems like the answer is “no.”

 

[BarbaraS]

But the church has taken a stand on abc and as Catholics we are not to use abc. And secular culture has been lied to for decades abc does not prevent conception! It aborts. Abortion hurt women! Does nothing for women except create new problems! Gay marriage goes against sanity of marriage! Goes against natural order of thing! No I don’t hate gays or lesbians just the SIN!

 

[JimG]

Every Christian church taught it was immoral until 1930.

Exactly right. It was condemned by every Christian denomination, not just Catholics.

The Anglicans were the first to cave on this issue, at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, allowing for artificial contraception in extreme circumstances. They probably did not have in mind teenagers picking up boxes of condoms at the local drugstore to store in the glove compartment as an extreme necessity.

Yet, with that doctrinal reversal, the floodgates opened. Only the Catholic Church maintained the doctrine.

In many states, contraceptives could only be purchased by married people. Griswold changed that.

Now, of course, we have a national out of wedlock pregnancy rate of 42%.

Somehow, the contraceptive solution didn’t work as advertised.

 

[Michaelo]

JimG

So should Catholics strive to make ABC illegal as they have with same sex marriage?

 

[Drawmack]

But the church has taken a stand on abc and as Catholics we are not to use abc.

I’m just curious if any of the Catholics around here know why the Church says that ABC is evil? Do you know what the theological basis for this statement is?

And secular culture has been lied to for decades abc does not prevent conception! It aborts.

Only one type of birth control, specifically chemical birth control, aborts. And, it does not always abort. It is known as an abortificient. The pill works in two ways, one way is to prevent pregnancy by preventing the woman from ovulating. The other way is to make the womb a hostile environment which the egg cannot survive in or attach to. This second way does cause a chemical abortion and is wrong. However, it is not correct to say it does not prevent conception because if taken at the same time every day and a day is never missed the pill does prevent conception. Additionally this is only true of one type of birth control and you’re saying it about all birth control.

It is misinformation tactics like this that weaken the position of the Church to a laughable state.

Abortion hurt women!

Just wow.

Gay marriage goes against sanity of marriage! Goes against natural order of thing! No I don’t hate gays or lesbians just the SIN!

What does that have to do with inconsistency on the topic of artificial birth control?

 

[JimG]

JimG

So should Catholics strive to make ABC illegal as they have with same sex marriage?

I don’t think so; although, as an adult product it should probably be regulated along the same lines in which alcohol is regulated. Providing such products to underage persons encourages sexual promiscuity, (rather like alcohol promoting bad behavior.)

I don’t think any states specifically made same-sex marriage illegal until recently. For thousands of years, marriage has been viewed as an arrangement between opposite sexes–because that’s the way the sexes are designed and the way in which children are conceived. So laws simply recognized that, and often provided tax benefits for married couples in recognition of the value of marriage and family to the social structure.

 

[manualman]

Law and morality are separate, but interrelated via the prudential judgement of those who make the laws. Things such as abortion, which are a violation of fundamental human rights, must always be opposed and efforts should be made to make it illegal.

Non-fundamental human rights moral issues like gay marriage or contraception CAN be codified into law, but it isn’t productive to do so unless you FIRST convince the bulk of the populace of the moral principle at work.

In the case of gay marriage, this culture still largely understands that there is a substantial difference between real marriage as the foundation of family and “gay marriage” which is nothing of the sort. Thus, it is appropriate to use laws as one means of retaining the cultural stance to most closely conforms to our moral stance.

In the case of contraception, most of western civilization has no idea why it is immoral or rejects the Church’s case for that. Since it is generally not a fundamental human rights issue, the best approach is to FIRST work to get the word out on how ABC is harmful to the marriage relationship and the family, THEN God willing, we’ll someday return to it being a shameful and perhaps even illegal practice. I’m not holding my breath though.

For the poster unfamiliar with catholic teaching on contraception, start by googling Dr. Janet Smith’s “Contraception, Why not?” and Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae” for details. The latter is the official explanation which is readable, but dense. The former is a good popular explanation. Be assured, it has little to do with abortion and much more to do with the very natures and purposes of sex itself (which are dishonored and damaged by contraception).

 

[budgie2]

I think in the British Catholic Church there’s a lack of impetus to stand up on issues regarding contraception full stop. The Church stands up about abortion but it doesn’t really tackle abortifacient “contraceptives” such as contraceptive pill, emergency contraceptive etc., although the latter is more looked down upon. The contraceptive pill led to the legalisation of abortion at least in my view and should be treated in the same way. I’m not into banning the condom.

 

[Drawmack]

For the poster unfamiliar with catholic teaching on contraception, start by googling Dr. Janet Smith’s “Contraception, Why not?” and Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae” for details. The latter is the official explanation which is readable, but dense. The former is a good popular explanation. Be assured, it has little to do with abortion and much more to do with the very natures and purposes of sex itself (which are dishonored and damaged by contraception).

I did not say I was unfamiliar with it. I asked if others were. I understand how this could imply that I’m not – however I am familiar with it. I was curious how many, if any, of the Catholics in this thread could actually articulate, in their own words, why the Catholic Church teaches that it is immoral.

 

[dakotahoard]

It’s hard to bring an issue back in to focus. It’s even harder to control an issue you bring back. So we find ourselves limited to what is already being discussed: Several Bishops have sponsored initiatives aimed at immigration reform, which is certainly outweighed by other issues, such as contraception, where the Bishops are largely silent.

I think the imbalance is a matter of allocating resources; the Church can only take public action in so many areas. Currently, there is a much better chance of a positive outcome in debates over homosexual unions than artificial birth control (i.e. contraception).

The various means of artificial birth control are strongly interconnected, though, and have far-reaching effects. The prevalence of contraceptives dictates the necessity of abortifacients and surgical abortions. Further, the disconnect amongst marriage, sex, and procreation, which, if not originated in, was gravely exacerbated by the increased use of contraceptives, is the cause of the current attacks of the sanctity of marriage, e.g. homosexual unions and divorce. Ultimately, the use of contraceptives needs to be eliminated if we are to eliminate abortion and restore the institution of marriage.

PS - @JimG Griswold dealt only with married couples. Eisenstadt v. Baird extended the Griswold ruling to unmarried couples.