Issues with Catholic teaching on procreation

[faithsmind]

The pill treats the very essence of feminity as a sickness to be eliminated. In fact, all contraception is the antithesis of all that is natural, poetic, and beautiful, because it lowers humanity to animal instinct rather than crowning them as sacred (sacrificial) co-creators with God’s plan of familial love. The huge puzzle piece that the other argument is missing is that they aren’t acknowledging the fact that God transcends our meager situations, gives us power, makes things great…

Walt Whitman said:
Oh me! Oh life! of the questions of these recurring,
Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish,
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light, of the objects mean, of the struggle ever renew’d,
Of the poor results of all, of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me,
Of the empty and useless years of the rest, with the rest me intertwined,
The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?

                                   Answer.

That you are here—that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.

 

[faithsmind]

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.

Unchecked human-reproduction is creating death?

Huh?

I would have to blame a lack of clean water supply and unsanitary conditions, as well as other political and environmental causes as the major source of death. People in poor countries are not dogs to be neutered, and should NEVER be educated as not having enough dignity to practice self-control. There are much better ways to offer a helping hand…

 

[mikekle]

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.

But we ARE multiplying, even though condoms have been used for decades, populations are still rising, people are still multiplying.

If contraception was having some impact on overall population rates, I could see it being a problem, but that doesnt seem to be the case, however the part about just wanting to enjoy the act without the baby is still present, so?

 

[Duane1966]

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

This is the Vatican’s official clarification of numerous newspapers twisting of what was actually said. Notice how the Church’s teaching has not changed, and it was Benedict XVI not JPII.

The pope observed that even in non-ecclesial environments, there’s a similar awareness, such as that of the so-called “ABC” approach (abstinence – be faithful – condoms), in which the first two elements (abstinence and fidelity) are far more determinative and fundamental for the struggle against AIDS. Meanwhile the condom, in the final analysis, seems like a shortcut when the other two elements are missing. It must be clear, therefore, that condoms are not the solution to the problem.

The pope then broadens the focus, insisting that to concentrate solely on condoms is tantamount to making sexuality into something banal, losing its meaning as an expression of love between persons, and turning it into a sort of “drug.” Struggling against the banalization of sexuality is “part of a great effort to see that sexuality is positively understood, and can exercise its positive effect on the human person in his or her totality.”

**In the light of this ample and profound vision of human sexuality, and its modern challenges, the pope reaffirms that “naturally the church does not consider condoms as the authentic and moral solution” to the problem of AIDS.

Thus the pope is not reforming or changing the teaching of the church, but reaffirming it by placing it in the context of the value and the dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.

At the same time, the pope considers an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality respresents a true risk to the life of another. In that case, the pope does not morally justify the disordered exercise of sexuality, but holds that the use of a condom in order to diminish the threat of infection is “a first assumption of responsibility,” **and “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” rather than not using a condom and exposing the other person to a threat to their life.

 

[PJH_74]

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.”

This women also introduced the period of the black mourning dress which made the widow mourn for 2 years including a veil for 3 months and likely never bright clothing afterwards. Men got away with wearing black normal clothing for 1 year.

Sure the symbol of the while dress has declined as sexual purity, but the attitude towards female sexuality remains remains more critical that towards me. One of the first questions asked after a woman is raped is “was she wearing something provocative?”.

 

[PJH_74]

I would have to blame a lack of clean water supply and unsanitary conditions, as well as other political and environmental causes as the major source of death. People in poor countries are not dogs to be neutered, and should NEVER be educated as not having enough dignity to practice self-control. There are much better ways to offer a helping hand…

Lack of clean water and effluent are indeed a major cause of death in the developing world. Political issues are another thing, often because of improperly directed foreign aid or mineral resources that provide plenty of opportunities for a kleptocracy with no responsibility towards its people.

Poor people are indeed not hapless individuals awaiting their white saviors. There is however a difference in providing tools for them to use that would not otherwise be available.

 

[faithsmind]

This women also introduced the period of the black mourning dress which made the widow mourn for 2 years including a veil for 3 months and likely never bright clothing afterwards. Men got away with wearing black normal clothing for 1 year.

Sure the symbol of the while dress has declined as sexual purity, but the attitude towards female sexuality remains remains more critical that towards me. One of the first questions asked after a woman is raped is “was she wearing something provocative?”.

Men have greater amounts of testosterone and a stronger sex drive, in general. So naturally, most societies have formed popular assumptions and cultural traditions and expectations within female/male interactions based off of this phenomenon. Have people taken it to unfair and illogical extremes at times? Of course. But I don’t think it’s an excuse to grow in bitterness and build your life approach off of a generalized victim mentality.

Male and female approaches to sexual interaction are completely different, physiologically. Sexuality occurs in the frontal lobe of the female brain, and is geared toward planning and emotional development of a relationship. In the male, it occurs in the middle/back of the brain, and is more of an simplistic physical drive detached from emotion. And if anything, use of abortion and contraception encourages an attitude which limits the sexual interaction to a the male’s simplistic, physical response, instead of male/female relationship, which warps the act into an unhealthy objectification of the female body, and creates a disregard for her emotional needs and desires within sexual intimacy.

 

[faithsmind]

There is however a difference in providing tools for them to use that would not otherwise be available.

This is a good point. However, as a Catholic, I refuse to aid people in tools which encourage the objectification of the female body and encourage abusive acts.

 

[PJH_74]

Men have greater amounts of testosterone and a stronger sex drive, in general. So naturally, most societies have formed popular assumptions and cultural traditions and expectations within female/male interactions based off of this phenomenon. Have people taken it to unfair and illogical extremes at times? Of course. But I don’t think it’s an excuse to grow in bitterness and build your life approach off of a generalized victim mentality.

There’s no naturally here, that’s providing cover. Many people at the apex of a society, the heterosexual white male in the USA, often can’t understand why others might be “embittered” or “victimizing”; they aren’t. The world works better in aggregate for the apex group and it’s for them to understand this.

Male and female approaches to sexual interaction are completely different, physiologically. Sexuality occurs in the frontal lobe of the female brain, and is geared toward planning and emotional development of a relationship. In the male, it occurs in the middle/back of the brain, and is more of an simplistic physical drive detached from emotion. And if anything, use of abortion and contraception encourages an attitude which limits the sexual interaction to a the male’s simplistic, physical response, instead of male/female relationship, which warps the act into an unhealthy objectification of the female body, and creates a disregard for her emotional needs and desires within sexual intimacy.

While I think you feel like or are trying to be charitable or chivalrous, you are expressing a narrative that is actually quite sexist. Women are not necessarily the passive emotional person scumming to the power of a male physical drive. They can and do participate in choices made, including sex. Female objectification is not a result of abortion or contraception, it’s just wrong because it diminishes of women to objects. The proceeding might sound harsh, but explaining the situation as you have is classic “mansplaining”.

 

[PJH_74]

This is a good point. However, as a Catholic, I refuse to aid people in tools which encourage the objectification of the female body and encourage abusive acts.

Thanks for the point. However I want to say that abusive acts towards women have little to do with sex, it’s about power and control. Rapists aren’t looking to have sex as much as they are looking to control a very vulnerable (if not the most vulnerable) aspect of a person.

 

[ATraveller]

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.

I agree it’s been unfair to women in its tone. I hope this imbalance can be corrected.

But we ARE multiplying, even though condoms have been used for decades, populations are still rising, people are still multiplying.

If contraception was having some impact on overall population rates, I could see it being a problem, but that doesnt seem to be the case, however the part about just wanting to enjoy the act without the baby is still present, so?

Contraception is having an impact but it’s being masked. The best example is Germany. It’s population is forecasted to decrease from 80 million to 60 million by 2050 even with immigration. 1.5 million migrants won’t do much even assuming they all get to stay. The global population continues to grow because contraception is discouraged in the Middle East and Africa. If it weren’t for immigration, most Western countries, with the exception of America for now, their populations would shrink.

Just an interesting note. Contraception is permissible in Protestant circles and even celebrated but leaders on the conservative/Evangelical side are starting to question that position. I think a few (including anti-Catholic ones) even cited Humanae Vitae. They don’t take the Catholic position but they are chipping at the positive view held across Protestantism.

 

[faithsmind]

There’s no naturally here, that’s providing cover. Many people at the apex of a society, the heterosexual white male in the USA, often can’t understand why others might be “embittered” or “victimizing”; they aren’t. The world works better in aggregate for the apex group and it’s for them to understand this.

While I think you feel like or are trying to be charitable or chivalrous, you are expressing a narrative that is actually quite sexist. Women are not necessarily the passive emotional person scumming to the power of a male physical drive. They can and do participate in choices made, including sex. Female objectification is not a result of abortion or contraception, it’s just wrong because it diminishes of women to objects. The proceeding might sound harsh, but explaining the situation as you have is classic “mansplaining”.

I am not a man. I am a full-time working single mother who escaped an abusive relationship. I know what mansplaining is. It has greatly affected mine and my children’s lives.

The fact that you have dismissed the electrical brain activity which demonstrates the differences of men and women brain function because it is “sexist” reveals quite a lot to me. Therefore, I am done with this conversation.

 

[faithsmind]

Thanks for the point. However I want to say that abusive acts towards women have little to do with sex, it’s about power and control. Rapists aren’t looking to have sex as much as they are looking to control a very vulnerable (if not the most vulnerable) aspect of a person.

Abuse is denying a person’s dignity as a human being.

 

[AiyanaS]

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

What makes you think people who use contraception don’t believe children are a gift from God?

 

[AiyanaS]

Abuse is denying a person’s dignity as a human being.

Contraception use between a consenting married couple who mutually decide to use it to limit the amount of children they have for whatever reason (ex. serious genetic conditions) is not analogous to rape or abuse. Nor does not objectify either individual.

 

[phil19034]

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

Ahhh. That’s really saying that if you are hell bent on fornicating (which is a mortal sin) or hell bent on having sex with a spouse who has HIV then wearing a condom is better than getting HIV

But in reality- 1) a person should not fornicate and (2) a loving spouse with HIV should refrain from sexual acts out of love for their spouse. A condom can break or slip off.

So wearing condoms in these situations doesn’t address the root of the problem, which is unchaste sex.

Finally, the truth is that if everyone were to practice abstinence before marriage and abstinence if infected with HIV, AIDS would be gone from the planet before the year 2100 (assuming we also stop sharing needles).

But instead people what to preach “safe sex” which doesn’t exist. I know more people who have had kids out of wedlock due to contraception not working than I can count. I know of no one who has kids due to “abstinence not working.”

 

[phil19034]

Contraception use between a consenting married couple who mutually decide to use it to limit the amount of children they have for whatever reason (ex. serious genetic conditions) is not analogous to rape or abuse. Nor does not objectify either individual.

As a man who has used contraception… I can tell you that it 100% does lead to the objectivcation of my wife.

My non-Catholic wife doesn’t want to have any more kids. So she refuses to have sex. My son is 28 months old and we have had sex just once he he was conceived (not born).

My wife also takes a birth control pill to control her period because she has very bad periods which cause her chemical imbalances during the period. The pill helps her with the severities of her period.

I now believe contraception is wrong (my wife doesn’t) but I still find myself lusting after my wife and wanting her body and telling her she’s silly because her chances of conceiving are low.

If my wife was solely abstaining, then I would know that sex has a big chance of having a child and sex should be only had when you are 100% ready to accept the outcome and welcome it. But instead, I find myself objectifying my wife once a month in order to attempt satisfy my sexual urges (which I feel horrible about later - and regularly causes me to attend confession).

So contraception does lead to the objectivation of ones spouse, esp when the two do not share the same sex drive.

I pray I’m making sense.

 

[Vonsalza]

As a man who has used contraception… I can tell you that it 100% does lead to the objectivcation of my wife.

It would be fallacious to assume that because you didn’t respond well to something, it should be banned for others.

But instead, I find myself objectifying my wife once a month in order to attempt satisfy my sexual urges (which I feel horrible about later - and regularly causes me to attend confession).

Wanting sex from your wife is not a bad thing. Have you ever glossed over the Song of Solomon in our bible? It’s basically poetic soft-core pornography. I have serious doubts that Solomon was thinking about the joys of children when he was describing the breasts of his “wife”.

 

[PJH_74]

I am not a man. I am a full-time working single mother who escaped an abusive relationship. I know what mansplaining is. It has greatly affected mine and my children’s lives.

The fact that you have dismissed the electrical brain activity which demonstrates the differences of men and women brain function because it is “sexist” reveals quite a lot to me. Therefore, I am done with this conversation.

My apologies, as a woman, I honestly thought I was dealing with a man. My prayers for you as you deal with the effects of such a terrible man.

 

[AiyanaS]

As a man who has used contraception… I can tell you that it 100% does lead to the objectivcation of my wife.

My non-Catholic wife doesn’t want to have any more kids. So she refuses to have sex. My son is 28 months old and we have had sex just once he he was conceived (not born).

My wife also takes a birth control pill to control her period because she has very bad periods which cause her chemical imbalances during the period. The pill helps her with the severities of her period.

I now believe contraception is wrong (my wife doesn’t) but I still find myself lusting after my wife and wanting her body and telling her she’s silly because her chances of conceiving are low.

If my wife was solely abstaining, then I would know that sex has a big chance of having a child and sex should be only had when you are 100% ready to accept the outcome and welcome it. But instead, I find myself objectifying my wife once a month in order to attempt satisfy my sexual urges (which I feel horrible about later - and regularly causes me to attend confession).

So contraception does lead to the objectivation of ones spouse, esp when the two do not share the same sex drive.

I pray I’m making sense.

Desiring sex with your wife is not a sin and since you are not forcing sex on her (rape), you are not objectifying her. Your not sinning by wanting physical intimacy with your spouse and there is nothing sinful about having incompatible sex drives.