Is contraception a sin

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There isn’t a whole lot to say anyway. Catholic views on sex are based on nothing more than fiat. There’s no over-arching logic to it. It’s true because some 60, 70 year old man that’s never supposedly had sex or a family his own simply says so. And that’s fine, I guess. But I won’t be party to it.

Really, Vonsalza? You’re resorting to this? I’m disappointed in you.

The sun will continue to rise. Your disappointment is worth nothing to me, just to be frank.

I “knew” a lot more about having kids before I had them. Most people will testify a similar experience.
When it comes to matters involving families, experience seems to matter - as it does in other issues.

For example, take the best a brightest surgeon out of med-school. I don’t care if he graduated top of his class, I’m not going to be his first attempt at putting surgical theory to practice.

 

[Vonsalza]

This makes more sense than

Thanks for the opinion, but the question remains unanswered.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Vonsalza:

There isn’t a whole lot to say anyway. Catholic views on sex are based on nothing more than fiat. There’s no over-arching logic to it. It’s true because some 60, 70 year old man that’s never supposedly had sex or a family his own simply says so. And that’s fine, I guess. But I won’t be party to it.

Really, Vonsalza? You’re resorting to this? I’m disappointed in you.

The sun will continue to rise. Your disappointment is worth nothing to me, just to be frank.

I “knew” a lot more about having kids before I had them. Most people will testify a similar experience.
When it comes to matters involving families, experience seems to matter - as it does in other issues.

For example, take the best a brightest surgeon out of med-school. I don’t care if he graduated top of his class, I’m not going to be his first attempt at putting surgical theory to practice.

What I’m disappointed in is that you view those with opinions that disagree with your own as basically just having bad wills, lacking any intellectual logic to support their positions.

 

[Start]

Catholic views on sex are based on nothing more than fiat.

There’s a lot of reasoning and theological study on the matter that led to this conclusion, not just some random rule that the Pope declared.

There’s no over-arching logic to it.

NFP might be the only contraction, but it can be reconciled.

It’s true because some 60, 70 year old man that’s never supposedly had sex or a family his own simply says so.

That’s not how Papal infallibility is works. It isn’t because he says, but because Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit will prevent errors from entering into the Church, and also these things take time and careful consideration and it isn’t some spur of the moment idea.

 

[Wesrock]

The dominant position of the Orthodox Churches in 1937 was similar to the Catholic position: NFP and abstinence are acceptable and contraception and CI are not. It is only recently that the dominant Orthodox view has changed.

Furthermore, you lightly dismiss the opinions of not just Saint Augustine, Orthodox bishop and saint to boot, but also that of others who touched on this topic, like Saint John Chrysostom. Now, certainly development can happen, but your objection boils down to “bad will and no logic!”, which is concerning on a number of fronts.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What I’m disappointed in is that you view those with opinions that disagree with your own as basically just having bad wills, lacking any intellectual logic to support their positions.

With respect, Wes, those who submit to Catholic views on sex don’t do so out of intellectual obedience. They use the more irrational part of their brains.

You’re off the deep end. Disagreement is one thing, but this is just, but there’s no argument with someone who insists on poisoning the well.

 

[Vonsalza]

How is it irrational?
I bet disobedience is motivated by concupiscence not intelligence.

I’ll tell you exactly why Catholic teaching on sex and family is irrationally predicated in a fundamental way-

-You’re not open to the possibility that you’re wrong and that another, superior argument could exist.

mic drop

 

[Start]

-You’re not open to the possibility that you’re wrong and that another, superior argument could exist.

I’ll cross that bridge when I get there.

 

[Arwing]

Couldn’t you say the same about practically any religious teaching? And that’s assuming it’s even true, here or there.

 

[Vonsalza]

Couldn’t you say the same about practically any religious teaching? And that’s assuming it’s even true, here or there.

For the better, more durable religious teachings there’s some sort of philosophical or natural doctrine that you can refer to that echos the religious teaching.

For example - marriage is between man and woman. Easy enough, right? What is homosexuality in a sexually reproducing species if not an anomaly?

But then-

Contraception is wrong because??? Fiat. There’s no secular analogue we can clearly see, especially as human population might be harming our planet (Holocene Extinction).

“Cafeteria Catholics” commit the “heresy” of choosing beliefs that they think are more defensible and shedding those that they think lack merit beyond raw fiat. In any other scenario, you’d do it yourself and call it
“optimization”.

 

[Start]

Contraception is wrong because??? Fiat. There’s no secular analogue we can clearly see, especially as human population might be harming our planet (Holocene Extinction).

The value of human life at the point of conception.

 

[Start]

Cafeteria Catholics” commit the “heresy” of choosing beliefs that they think are more defensible and shedding those that they think lack merit beyond raw fiat.

Most of them are about sexual sins and (for the most part) it’s pretty obvious that the motive is not that the beliefs are more defensible.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Contraception is wrong because??? Fiat. There’s no secular analogue we can clearly see, especially as human population might be harming our planet (Holocene Extinction).

The value of human life at the point of conception.

Not true else the church would allow condoms, clearly. There is no conception.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Cafeteria Catholics” commit the “heresy” of choosing beliefs that they think are more defensible and shedding those that they think lack merit beyond raw fiat.

Most of them are about sexual sins and (for the most part) it’s pretty obvious that the motive is not that the beliefs are more defensible.

Honestly, most women on BC are moms in their 30s trying not to have another one.

The face of contraception isn’t an irresponsible 20-something looking to have fun.

The face of contraception is a tired mother.

 

[Start]

Preventing conception through condoms doesn’t show a value for human life.

 

[Start]

Honestly, most women on BC are moms in their 30s trying not to have another one.

The face of contraception isn’t an irresponsible 20-something looking to have fun.

The face of contraception is a tired mother.

Then they would just abstain, it’s cheaper that way too.

 

[Vonsalza]

In truth I think that’s the real Catholic position. Sex is for babies and if you don’t want babies you can’t have sex. NFP is an olive branch and an ideological inconsistency that didn’t catch on. If the point is avoiding babies, the pill is more effective at realizing the same intent.

 

[Vonsalza]

Of course this is troublesome for a species that evolved a fundamental sex-drive for the sake of the survival of the species. Hence the abandonment of the Catholic position by virtually all sides- people going to the pill an the Church going to NFP with inconsistent levels of conviction

 

[Start]

NFP uses natural cycles of involuntary infertility to work, so there is enough of a difference, but that’s another non sequitur.

 

[Start]

Also sex is mostly for reproduction, so there’s another secular reason.