Issues with Catholic teaching on procreation

[PJH_74]

I’ve had an issue with Catholic teachings on procreation. I know the dogma,but I would love to hear how you deal with it.

Don’t really have an issue with not having sex outside marriage and part of the joy of marriage is having children. However I see the prohibition or contraceptives and the sin of abortions, in anything less than extraordinary conditions as one exacerbating the other. I’d rather see an conception not happen than a child aborted.

I also see, as men might not, a patriarchal history to this, not specifically restrained to Catholicism. Women had their virtual held to a higher standards. Sexually active men weren’t whores, men weren’t the “gate keepers”, men did not have to wear white at their wedding to display their virtue. In many way that the pro-life focus is mostly on women, men it seems get a pass because they aren’t “holding the bag”. Given that history, I feel like these things have bias toward how they are applied women.

Also I see some social justice issues with the prohibition of condoms. For one its help in reducing disease, especially in developing countries. About 70% of the world;s AIDS infections are in sub-Saharan Africa. in the South Africa and some surrounding countries the infection rate is higher than 15%, a crisis level. There is also substantial increasing demand and a finite supply of earth’s resources. This can lead to substantial famine and inequality as the population explodes.

Thoughts?

 

[Estevao]

Concerning the AIDS question, I really question the efficacy of a mass distribution of contraceptives, particularly condoms, in curbing AIDS. It seems to be just taken for granted that handing out condoms will stop AIDS, therefore the Catholic Church is wrong, but that simply hasn’t been demonstrated. There is a former Harvard professor who revealed that, at least in Africa (the most common locale for AIDS to be sure) simply handing out condoms has not actually curbed AIDS in any way.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Of course this kind of position is verboten to liberal orthodoxy, so he soon left his position.

I think the natural law/thomistic argument against contraception is particularly strong. I think that a lot of people don’t give it the fair hearing it deserves. There is a personalistic tradition of philosophy that makes other arguments, most famously explained by Pope St. John Paul II. However I don’t know enough about this to really talk about it. But for the natural law argument, it simply boils down to contraception being an active, intentional frustration of the clear main purpose of sex: procreation. When one contracepts, one puts a clear barrier and frustrates the primary purpose of sex: makin’ babies. And this is simply wrong. Most people realized this intuitively in history. Luther and Calvin were certainly against contraception (as it existed in their day).

Contraception used to be taboo and seen as evil until the 1930s on. Even Sigmund Freud said:

t is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently

 

[Duane1966]

I’ve had an issue with Catholic teachings on procreation. I know the dogma,but I would love to hear how you deal with it.

Don’t really have an issue with not having sex outside marriage and part of the joy of marriage is having children. However I see the prohibition or contraceptives and the sin of abortions, in anything less than extraordinary conditions as one exacerbating the other. I’d rather see an conception not happen than a child aborted.

I also see, as men might not, a patriarchal history to this, not specifically restrained to Catholicism. Women had their virtual held to a higher standards. Sexually active men weren’t whores, men weren’t the “gate keepers”, men did not have to wear white at their wedding to display their virtue. In many way that the pro-life focus is mostly on women, men it seems get a pass because they aren’t “holding the bag”. Given that history, I feel like these things have bias toward how they are applied women.

Also I see some social justice issues with the prohibition of condoms. For one its help in reducing disease, especially in developing countries. About 70% of the world;s AIDS infections are in sub-Saharan Africa. in the South Africa and some surrounding countries the infection rate is higher than 15%, a crisis level. There is also substantial increasing demand and a finite supply of earth’s resources. This can lead to substantial famine and inequality as the population explodes.

Thoughts?

Two points.

1.) When you practice contraception, you are in essence saying the act is good, the results are bad.

2.) In countries where condoms have been given out to fight the spread of AIDS, those countries have seen a dramatic increase in the disease. In fact, and you can do the research and find this is true the African countries which have the least Catholic, or Muslim influence, have a far higher percentage of AIDS than African countries that have a higher influence of Catholicism, or Islam. A 2005 article in the NY Times bore witness to this fact.

 

[steve93]

Perhaps the dumb natives could get some morals and stop having multiple sex partners?

 

[Lea101]

No consequence sex leads to problems, imo. Which led to the problem of stds in the first place.

Yes, it doesn’t look good on women when you explain it like that. And when you look at how tedious and difficult Nfp can be, it does makes things look worse, does it?

But I think it’ll help you if you read more about this matter.

 

[Stephen_says]

When God created us in his image, he created us to participate and assist in creation. The first commandment he gave to humanity was “Go forth and multiply!”

Does it make sense, then, that when we purposefully thwart creation by contracepting, we are breaking this first commandment? Should this be something we stand against?

I will grant you that we live in a secular society, and it’s hard to convince non-Catholics to follow the teachings of the church, but then it should be our goal first to convert the world to faith in Christ.

 

[PJH_74]

Commants?

nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html

 

[Duane1966]

Commants?

nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html

From this website dowym.com/discover/condoms-africa/

What’s wrong with promoting condoms to stop AIDS?

Billions of condoms have been shipped to Africa in order to prevent the spread of HIV.[1] However, countries that have relied on such “protection” to curb the epidemic are not seeing any great decline in the virus.[2]

One nation that clearly demonstrates this problem is Botswana. For over a decade Botswana has relied upon widespread availability of condoms in order to combat AIDS. Campaigns for abstinence and fidelity were not emphasized. Instead, billboards about “safe sex” lined the streets, while schoolchildren learned songs about condoms. According to The Washington Post, “The anti-AIDS partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and drugmaker Merck budgeted $13.5 million for condom promotion – 25 times the amount dedicated to curbing dangerous sexual behavior. But soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the highest in Africa.”[3]

Unfortunately, Botswana was not the only nation to make this mistake. The journal Studies in Family Planning pointed this out in their article “Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?” Its authors noted that “in many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use… No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion.”[4]
The Uganda example

However, there is a clear example of an African nation turning back the epidemic of AIDS by other means. In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections.[5] In 1991, 22 percent of people in the country were infected with HIV. By 1999 the number had dropped to 6 percent.[6] Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni insists that their unique success among African countries is due to their behavioral approach. He said, “In comparison with other countries per capita expenditure on condoms, we spend far below other developed countries, which emphasize use of condoms in their fight against the disease.”[7] **Instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.[8] **

Comments?

 

[dnu]

I don’t personally know a single person who was Catholic ten years ago who is still in the Church. All left over contraception.

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t personally know a single person who was Catholic ten years ago who is still in the Church. All left over contraception.

So you are saying that none of them believe children are a gift from God?

 

[Vonsalza]

I think the contraception objection is a reasonably fair critique.

2000 years ago if you had another child, you could just plant an extra few rows and call it good. Today, you can’t spontaneously make another $10K a year to cover the marginal costs of having a child in western society where people have been divorced from the land for generations. And I’m not talking about keeping up lavish lifestyles, either. After insurance, I’ve gotta come up with $5K just for having the baby. From much personal experience, that turns out the be the cheap part.

Heck, the guy who came up with “The Pill” was a Catholic trying to head-off over-population (just look at the Philippines) and familial strain from having too many kids in a post-agrarian age. His method involved no “death” at all - the woman just didn’t ovulate. No ovum? No death. And no onanism. However, the Pope famously dissented because it still frustrated natural function. But apparently the frustration of natural function sought by taking blood pressure meds, cholesterol lowering meds or most modern medicine in general is still A-OK.

I’ll give one thing to the Orthodox: they will generally allow married couples with kids to take non-abortifacient contraceptives so that they have no more. And as their sacraments are considered valid, it tempts a man to “switch teams” from time to time - especially if his conscience doesn’t tell him that non-abortifacient contraceptives are wrong.

I guess it’s a hot-button issue for me and the Mrs… We’re well beyond the age of chasing new children, but still technically young enough that her reproductive system hasn’t shut-down yet. The dogmatic reply of “then you two must live as brother an sister” is a little dumb. We’re not siblings. We’re married lovers with children.

 

[steve93]

I think the contraception objection is a reasonably fair critique.

2000 years ago if you had another child, you could just plant an extra few rows and call it good. Today, you can’t spontaneously make another $10K a year to cover the marginal costs of having a child in western society where people have been divorced from the land for generations. And I’m not talking about keeping up lavish lifestyles, either. After insurance, I’ve gotta come up with $5K just for having the baby. From much personal experience, that turns out the be the cheap part.

Heck, the guy who came up with “The Pill” was a Catholic trying to head-off over-population (just look at the Philippines) and familial strain from having too many kids in a post-agrarian age. His method involved no “death” at all - the woman just didn’t ovulate. No ovum? No death. And no onanism. However, the Pope famously dissented because it still frustrated natural function. But apparently the frustration of natural function sought by taking blood pressure meds, cholesterol lowering meds or most modern medicine in general is still A-OK.

I’ll give one thing to the Orthodox: they will generally allow married couples with kids to take non-abortifacient contraceptives so that they have no more. And as their sacraments are considered valid, it tempts a man to “switch teams” from time to time - especially if his conscience doesn’t tell him that non-abortifacient contraceptives are wrong.

I guess it’s a hot-button issue for me and the Mrs… We’re well beyond the age of chasing new children, but still technically young enough that her reproductive system hasn’t shut-down yet. The dogmatic reply of “then you two must live as brother an sister” is a little dumb. We’re not siblings. We’re married lovers with children.

I don’t know what Orthodox you’re referring to, perhaps liberal leaning Greeks, but the Russians would definitely not promote contraception.

 

[Duane1966]

I think the contraception objection is a reasonably fair critique.

2000 years ago if you had another child, you could just plant an extra few rows and call it good. Today, you can’t spontaneously make another $10K a year to cover the marginal costs of having a child in western society where people have been divorced from the land for generations. And I’m not talking about keeping up lavish lifestyles, either. After insurance, I’ve gotta come up with $5K just for having the baby. From much personal experience, that turns out the be the cheap part.

Heck, the guy who came up with “The Pill” was a Catholic trying to head-off over-population (just look at the Philippines) and familial strain from having too many kids in a post-agrarian age. His method involved no “death” at all - the woman just didn’t ovulate. No ovum? No death. And no onanism. However, the Pope famously dissented because it still frustrated natural function. But apparently the frustration of natural function sought by taking blood pressure meds, cholesterol lowering meds or most modern medicine in general is still A-OK.

I’ll give one thing to the Orthodox: they will generally allow married couples with kids to take non-abortifacient contraceptives so that they have no more. And as their sacraments are considered valid, it tempts a man to “switch teams” from time to time - especially if his conscience doesn’t tell him that non-abortifacient contraceptives are wrong.

I guess it’s a hot-button issue for me and the Mrs… We’re well beyond the age of chasing new children, but still technically young enough that her reproductive system hasn’t shut-down yet. The dogmatic reply of “then you two must live as brother an sister” is a little dumb. We’re not siblings. We’re married lovers with children.

But not with room in your house if God decided to send another child your way. What you are in essence saying is: Lord, the act is good, the result is not.

There really is not much difference between contraception and abortion. Let me give an example.

A couple has sex.

In scenario A, if she were not on the pill, a human life would have been conceived.

In scenario B, despite being on the pill, she conceived against her wishes, and went and got an abortion.

In scenario C, she did not attempt to frustrate the act, and she conceived, and nine months later a child is born.

In all three scenarios we can objectively say that God intended a human life to be in the world. Yet in only one of them, does human life actually enter, because in two-thirds of the scenario, human beings do everything in their power not to bring life into this world.

I laugh when people tell me they are pro-life and pro-contraception. They certainly are not pro-life to what might be.

 

[Genesis315]

People get abortions because they have sex and don’t want a child, not because they had sex willing to welcome new life. The contraceptive mentality–ie divorcing sex from procreation and making a child something to be avoided–naturally leads to more abortions than a healthy view of sex and its natural connection to creating children (this is especially true when contraception fails–abortion is usually the “plan b” not the “plan a” when it comes to avoiding children and is therefore tied heavily to contraception use). That seems like a pretty obvious truth to me.

 

[Genesis315]

But apparently the frustration of natural function sought by taking blood pressure meds, cholesterol lowering meds or most modern medicine in general is still A-OK.

I’m not sure I see the connection. Contraception takes a perfectly healthy, major bodily system, and makes it malfunction. Actual medicine intends to make an unhealthy system function better or more normally. They are direct opposites.

I guess it’s a hot-button issue for me and the Mrs… We’re well beyond the age of chasing new children, but still technically young enough that her reproductive system hasn’t shut-down yet. The dogmatic reply of “then you two must live as brother an sister” is a little dumb. We’re not siblings. We’re married lovers with children.

There can also be periodic abstinence if you have a just reason–it doesn’t have to be total (Catholics aren’t required to have sex everyday or only during fertile periods). Also, not even the pill is 100% effective–if your reasons are so serious that you can’t risk having more children, then you shouldn’t be risking it by having sex at all (I say this as someone who has had to walk that walk during times where the issues were that serious).

 

[Vonsalza]

I get that I’m not in-step with the Church on the issue, so I don’t expect to be able to convince you of my view. But I would like to offer some rebuttals;

But not with room in your house if God decided to send another child your way. What you are in essence saying is: Lord, the act is good, the result is not.

If my wife miraculously conceived, we’d lovingly raise the child as best we could. Period.

Concerning “the result” being not good, I’d say that I’m at the point where I feel that’s true enough to no longer seek any more kids. After so many, more children detract from the “goodness” of the preceding children because of the increasing opportunity cost incurred on the family unit with each additional child. I guess you could loosely compare it to a scheme of diminishing marginal returns that eventually run negative if you keep producing.

Left unchecked, the microcosm of the child-strained family blows up into the macrocosm like we see in the Philippines and many sections of Africa where death is frequently occurring because there isn’t enough sustenance around to provide for all the people. In those places, unchecked human-reproduction is directly creating death on an almost industrial scale.

There really is not much difference between contraception and abortion.

Respectfully as I can, that’s an enormously asinine statement.

An abortion occurs when the unborn at any stage loses their life by willful, deliberate action of it’s mother.

There is no unborn child extant if sperm and ovum never successfully encounter one another - which is precisely what non-aborifacient birth control methods do. When the mother finally ovulates, the ovum is discharged from her body in the same fashion as it always has; normally and naturally.

In all three scenarios we can objectively say that God intended a human life to be in the world.

But it’s certainly an incomplete, one-sided scenario set, isn’t it? You forgot the couple that engaged in intimacy and just didn’t conceive.

I laugh when people tell me they are pro-life and pro-contraception. They certainly are not pro-life to what might be.

Similarly, I laugh when I see someone equate a sperm and an ovum with an unborn child.

As I said earlier, I’m sure I’m not going to convince you of anything. But if I could make a polite suggestion, I’d keep the whole “contraceptives and abortions are the same thing” limited to select company.

And that’s all I’m going to say about this for fear of being banned. You have the floor.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not sure I see the connection. Contraception takes a perfectly healthy, major bodily system, and makes it malfunction. Actual medicine intends to make an unhealthy system function better or more normally. They are direct opposites.

Au contraire, blood pressure and cholesterol certainly seem to be boringly common “malfunctions” that most of us encounter with some level of predictability with age and diet. One could vigorously argue that they’re mostly natural consequences of the way we live. If you’re overweight by a substantial amount, you’re probably going to have BP problems, 10 to 1. Treating BP with a pill is a frustration of your body’s natural attempt to successfully push blood to all the corners of your over-fat body.

There can also be periodic abstinence if you have a just reason–it doesn’t have to be total (Catholics aren’t required to have sex everyday or only during fertile periods). Also, not even the pill is 100% effective–if your reasons are so serious that you can’t risk having more children, then you shouldn’t be risking it by having sex at all (I say this as someone who has had to walk that walk during times where the issues were that serious).

I appreciate the reality of your perspective. Thanks for the chat.

 

[Duane1966]

I get that I’m not in-step with the Church on the issue, so I don’t expect to be able to convince you of my view. But I would like to offer some rebuttals;

If my wife miraculously conceived, we’d lovingly raise the child as best we could. Period.

Concerning “the result” being not good, I’d say that I’m at the point where I feel that’s true enough to no longer seek any more kids. After so many, more children detract from the “goodness” of the preceding children because of the increasing opportunity cost incurred on the family unit with each additional child. I guess you could loosely compare it to a scheme of diminishing marginal returns that eventually run negative if you keep producing.

Can you give some statistics that support this claim?

Left unchecked, the microcosm of the child-strained family blows up into the macrocosm like we see in the Philippines and many sections of Africa where death is frequently occurring because there isn’t enough sustenance around to provide for all the people. In those places, unchecked human-reproduction is directly creating death on an almost industrial scale.

This is your strongest argument.

Respectfully as I can, that’s an enormously asinine statement.

An abortion occurs when the unborn at any stage loses their life by willful, deliberate action of it’s mother.

There is no unborn child extant if sperm and ovum never successfully encounter one another - which is precisely what non-aborifacient birth control methods do. When the mother finally ovulates, the ovum is discharged from her body in the same fashion as it always has; normally and naturally.

There is one thing that potentially makes it unnatural. If she had sex during ovulation, we will never know if God intended that act to bring a soul into being.

But it’s certainly an incomplete, one-sided scenario set, isn’t it? You forgot the couple that engaged in intimacy and just didn’t conceive.

I didn’t forget. It is complete. We are dealing with a scenario where pregnancy would have resulted from the act in it’s natural state. No one believes there is anything wrong with the act not resulting in a pregnancy when the act itself has not been inhibited.

Similarly, I laugh when I see someone equate a sperm and an ovum with an unborn child.

As I said earlier, I’m sure I’m not going to convince you of anything. But if I could make a polite suggestion, I’d keep the whole “contraceptives and abortions are the same thing” limited to select company.

And that’s all I’m going to say about this for fear of being banned. You have the floor.

Did not say they were the same thing.

Vonsalza, at the end of the day, you must say that God does not care whether a child comes into being as a result of intercourse. If you say God care’s, then why are you doing everything short of actually not performing the act, to inhibit the natural outcome of the act?

 

[faithsmind]

I’ve had an issue with Catholic teachings on procreation. I know the dogma,but I would love to hear how you deal with it.

Don’t really have an issue with not having sex outside marriage and part of the joy of marriage is having children. However I see the prohibition or contraceptives and the sin of abortions, in anything less than extraordinary conditions as one exacerbating the other. I’d rather see an conception not happen than a child aborted.

I also see, as men might not, a patriarchal history to this, not specifically restrained to Catholicism. Women had their virtual held to a higher standards. Sexually active men weren’t whores, men weren’t the “gate keepers”, men did not have to wear white at their wedding to display their virtue. In many way that the pro-life focus is mostly on women, men it seems get a pass because they aren’t “holding the bag”. Given that history, I feel like these things have bias toward how they are applied women.

Also I see some social justice issues with the prohibition of condoms. For one its help in reducing disease, especially in developing countries. About 70% of the world;s AIDS infections are in sub-Saharan Africa. in the South Africa and some surrounding countries the infection rate is higher than 15%, a crisis level. There is also substantial increasing demand and a finite supply of earth’s resources. This can lead to substantial famine and inequality as the population explodes.

Thoughts?

I’d like to discuss your popular understanding of the white wedding dress, which is symbolic of all the other popular understandings you’ve presented here.

The white laced wedding dress was first worn by Queen Victoria, and came to symbolize the epitome of romance and undying love for her husband, a love that forever persisted past his death and also popularized the mourning widow’s black jet stone of her late queenship.

From there, it has mindlessly telephoned down the ages into strict standard of dress, but truly its beginnings had nothing to do with being created as a symbol to pressure a bride into living a chaste life for her husband. This is a twisting of what it’s original popularity sprang from–beautiful romance of great, pure love. And the great majority of brides could care less, and go into marriage after having multiple sex partners. It is exactly the opposite of what you state. If anything, there is a huge amount of social pressure to live unchastely and find value in herself by “flaunting her goods.”

 

[Herculees]

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff (JP II) has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms. You may want to go to the link to read more:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html