Is contraception a sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosie11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the majority of sexual encounters don’t produce a child, the notion that it’s “mostly for reproduction” is ideological rather than factual.
 
Its “a” purpose. Trying to present something as “the” purpose is, again, an opinion rather than a fact.
 
Start said:
Preventing conception through condoms doesn’t show a value for human life.
Click to expand...
I think it shows greater value for human life than those who conceive willy-nilly. People who use condoms understand the overwhelmingly awesome responsibility that comes with parenthood for no reason other than human life is such a valuable thing. Putting off a pregnancy, or never becoming pregnant because one is not in the position to give the baby its best shot at life is an honorable thing to do.

Your statemeny doesn’t hold water.
 
Last edited:
Start said:
Also sex is mostly for reproduction, so there’s another secular reason.
Click to expand...
Says you! That doesn’t square with what I know about the subject. Truthfully, it isn’t Catholic teaching, either.
 
I’ll testify that before we decided to start trying and after #1 showed up, the vast vast vast majority of intimate encounters my wife and I have enjoyed were not with the intent of having children.

About the furthest thing from our minds, really. God have mercy on our souls. 😉
 
Last edited:
Start said:
And you’re telling me “says you.”
Click to expand...
The vast majority of sexual encounters do not produce a pregnancy, even if birth control is not used. This would be an indiator that the primary purpose of sex is not for reproduction. It is A purpose, but not the ONLY purpose. There are many other purposes I know of, but I won’t bother to go into them here.
 
I didn’t say only purpose. I’ll say it is an important purpose.
 
Last edited:
There is a grave misunderstanding when it’s claimed that the Church puts more emphasis on the procreative aspect than the aspect of unity in the conjugal relations. The simple truth is that the openness of the marital act can be properly attributed to the unitive aspect. Coitus interruptus is an interruption in the physical unity of sex. Contraceptive devices and drugs are intentional physical and hormonal barriers to that unity as well, which only the total openness of the act affords. The intention here is key, as it’s the willful holding back of oneself, one’s love, and the openness and total giving of self that the conjugal union demands. This is more than just physical barriers being introduced, it’s emotional and mental, too. These are obstacles to unity in the couple that occur within their wilfull expression of the act with each other, and have no place in a sacrament intended to model Christ’s love for his Church and which is also an expression of the interior love and unity of the Trinity.

NFP keeps the union open. Accidental sterilization and infertility also represent no defect in interior disposition in withholding the openness and unitive aspects of the act, as the couple still engages in total and open self giving to each other during the act. The expression remains open and unitive, and this position on different forms of birth control is consistent with the Church Fathers.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
If looking at a full cycle and dillbritly choosing to sterilize the act by timing the act then its contraception.
Click to expand...
It is an exageration.
We do not sterilize a act this choosing to have it only in infertile days.
Days are just infertile (very unlikely to be fertile), but not sterile.
We do not choose to sterilized anything, it is a biological reality.
 
Wesrock said:
Coitus interruptus is an interruption in the physical unity of sex.
Click to expand...
I read all you wrote there but this cannot possibly stand. Sorry for my language but a physical injection cannot be the norm in which to define unity. You say physical unity, relations in this sense is already very physical and you say the make or break point is a physical injection?
Wesrock said:
These are obstacles to unity in the couple that occur within their wilfull expression of the act with each other, and have no place in a sacrament intended to model Christ’s love for his Church and which is also an expression of the interior love and unity of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
I think this part is wholly answered by what I said above. To bring it to an even further step as to assuming it is intended “in the way you say” on Christ’s love is just an interpretation of all of this.

These are not obstacles to unity at all. The act has been there long before Christianity. To try and fit it in a specific paradigm is not the answer!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top