Issues with Catholic teaching on procreation

[faithsmind]

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.

never stated it was the same as rape, but I do believe contraceptive sex is denying a person’s entire dignity as a full-functioning human being. People obviously have different ideas about gift of their entire self.

Your belief makes sense. But intercourse is not the same as a massage or a foot rub. There’s a much deeper, more powerful component playing into this particular act, and to deny it cheapens the sex act into a very good mutual foot rub. You do this for me and I’ll do this for you. These “sexist” parts of the body are disrespected, medicated to become less than they truly are so that we can use them in the way that we’d like to use them, whenever, wherever, however.

 

[PJH_74]

I would agree, you are open to procreation and are in a sacred marriage with your wife. Making love is a two person thing with give and take. She’s making a stand, as a non-Catholic, that she does not what more children. But you have a child between you and her. I think you are doing your best given the conflicting circumstances and have the right heart.

 

[faithsmind]

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

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”.

First of all, Song of Songs is the opposite of any type of porn. Meaning, there is nothing lewd or inappropriate about these thoughts. But they are within a VERY APPROPRIATE context. Read the entire book, notice the other writings that surround these thoughts. Even note where the book’s placement is within the other books… Hidden away in the center of the entire Bible. There is a lot going into these writings, most importantly, the entire redemptive love story of God’s relationship with His children, besides just Solomon’s thoughts on breasts.

 

[Vonsalza]

First of all, Song of Songs is the opposite of any type of porn. Meaning, there is nothing lewd or inappropriate about these thoughts.

I never said it was inappropriate. Quite the opposite. So please do not characterize my comments as such.

But they are within a VERY APPROPRIATE context… There is a lot going into these writings, most importantly, the entire redemptive love story of God’s relationship with His children, besides just Solomon’s thoughts on breasts.

Point being, the text is, in part, an erotic one - even if it pains you to admit that.

The poetry about her body as well as “the fruit of his lap” is erogenous - unambiguously so.

Are there other things going on in the text? Sure!

Would it be wrong to exclude the eroticism Solomon is also displaying for his new, young wife (probably the latest of many)? Of course!

My only point was that there is nothing wrong with erotic desire in the context of a marriage. Stay your sword.

 

[faithsmind]

You characterized the Song of Songs as soft core porn. I disagree with that.

And my point is that the eroticism is in context. So please take note of that GIANT amount of important context.

 

[AiyanaS]

I do believe contraceptive sex is denying a person’s entire dignity as a full-functioning human being.

How?

Your belief makes sense. But intercourse is not the same as a massage or a foot rub. There’s a much deeper, more powerful component playing into this particular act, and to deny it cheapens the sex act into a very good mutual foot rub. You do this for me and I’ll do this for you. These “sexist” parts of the body are disrespected, medicated to become less than they truly are so that we can use them in the way that we’d like to use them, whenever, wherever, however.

Better than passing on a genetic disease and watching our kids suffer. Better to take precautions and act responsibly than be sorry later. There are many reasons people decide to not have or postpone childbearing. One is some people, like me, do not have the luxury of procreating without worry for our children’s health so reproducing is not a prudent or responsible decision. I know there are Catholics and Christians who down right don’t care what there kids are born with or how many kids they have with that condition or how much those kids suffer on Earth (or maybe they do, they just don’t weigh there child’s extra struggles as a problem or a good enough reason to stop having more kids and playing the odds) but not everyone is that insensitive and cruel.

 

[tweedlealice]

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?

Salutations,
Moot points now. We have it all! Pope BENEDICT XVI came out and stated, he reluctantly gives permission for condoms, to stop the spread of HIV virus/AIDS!
Pope Frances stated, we can use birth control during child bearing years since mosquitoes carrying Zita virus have results of microcephaly and retardation.
Haven’t heard them say that they cancelled everything yet.
I heard them myself on TV.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[faithsmind]

How?

Better than passing on a genetic disease and watching our kids suffer. Better to take precautions and act responsibly than be sorry later. There are many reasons people decide to not have or postpone childbearing. One is some people, like me, do not have the luxury of procreating without worry for our children’s health so reproducing is not a prudent or responsible decision. I know there are Catholics and Christians who down right don’t care what there kids are born with or how many kids they have with that condition or how much those kids suffer on Earth (or maybe they do, they just don’t weigh there child’s extra struggles as a problem or a good enough reason to stop having more kids and playing the odds) but not everyone is that insensitive and cruel.

You’re wondering how this is this abusive?
By demanding they shut off a healthy and functioning part of themselves in order to have sex with you. I was reading in an article the other day which talked about two traits consistently found in couples who had stood the test of time. It was a longitudinal study. The traits were thankfulness and respect. If people were more thankful and less demanding in their " right" to have sex, relationships would be much happier, I think. Sex is a privilege and an honor, not a right. And I think it’s important to respect the natural functioning of yours or a spouse’s body.

In response to your second statement:
With your line of reasoning, such a gentle and loving heart as yours should then deny every human life, since it’s guaranteed that every life will face a difficult amount of suffering.

I’m so glad my friend has a beautiful little daughter with a genetic disease that she was born with. It’s been a great struggle for the family, but because of it, they are strong and are all thankful for the things and many people that they do have in their life. She is one happy little girl, and her mom has grown to be an incredible woman. I love that little girl, and I’m thankful that her wisdom and happiness can be shared with my son and with our family. God brings incredible things from suffering, that is if we believe in Him and have a Christian attitude towards it.

The sufferings of this present life can’t hold a candle to the joy that is to come. I think a Christian who truly believes this should give every suffering life a chance so that they might be able to be with Christ and our brothers and sisters in heaven for eternity.

 

[faithsmind]

Salutations,
Moot points now. We have it all! Pope BENEDICT XVI came out and stated, he reluctantly gives permission for condoms, to stop the spread of HIV virus/AIDS!
Pope Frances stated, we can use birth control during child bearing years since mosquitoes carrying Zita virus have results of microcephaly and retardation.
Haven’t heard them say that they cancelled everything yet.
I heard them myself on TV.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

At the same time, I do think we need to act responsibly if we do know that a child could be brought into disease or a dangerous situation. But we are co-creators, not primary creators. God plays a giant part in this, and He brings great good from things we don’t understand or like.

AGAIN, sex is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Duane1966]

I found the end of this article calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/ to summarize perfectly why the Catholic Church views contraception as a perversion:

So What’s the Big Deal About Contraception Anyway?

In an era where nearly every other Christian group has approved at least some method of contraception, why does the Catholic Church continue to oppose it so strenuously?** The reason is simple: God created the sexual act with the three-fold purposes of procreation, the unifying of the couple and pleasure. To remove any one of these elements from the sexual act is to pervert it into something other than what God intended it to be. To remove the life-giving potential of the sexual act is to change its nature.**

What makes a sexual act licit or illicit is whether or not it is performed in accordance with God’s design for sexual activity. Homosexual acts are illicit because God designed sex to be between a man and a woman. Adultery and fornication between a man and a woman are illicit because God intended sex to be between a married man and woman. Rape is illicit because God designed sexual union to be entered into willingly. **Contraceptive sex acts are illicit because God designed sex to produce children.

When the procreative aspect of the sexual act is removed, the act takes on a different nature than it had when procreation was a possibility. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in his Theology of the Body talks, the couple engaging in contraceptive sex is lying with their bodies. The body is saying, “I am giving you the gift of my whole self,” but one of the most incredible gifts spouses can give to each other, their reproductive capacity, is being withheld. The act becomes primarily about pleasure and thus becomes inherently selfish.** The act that is supposed to reflect the life-giving union of Christ and the Church becomes an act that seeks only its own temporal satisfaction, not the self-sacrifice and self-donation that comes with the possibility of the creation of new life.

This pleasure-centered version of sex is contrary to the nature of the Triune life which, as the Divine Liturgy reminds us, is fundamentally life-giving. If marriage is to be a picture of the life of the Trinity and the relationship of Christ and the Church, we can never say “no” to life and sacrifice, which is precisely what contraceptive sex does.

 

[Duane1966]

And this catholicstand.com/contraception-wrong/:

Today, when someone tries to lose weight by vomiting the food they eat, we say they have an eating disorder. Just so, when the ancient Romans sought to separate the pleasure of eating from its biological purpose, we see it as disordered. Or we just call it gross. Take your pick.

If this sounds odd to bring up in an article allegedly about contraception, consider this: Artificial contraception of any sort, physical, chemical or behavioral, does with our sexuality exactly what the Romans did with food. There are two aspects to human sexuality as well: unitive and pro-creative. Sexual activity done right is unitive, bonding two people through pleasurable activity. There is also a biological purpose to sex, which (hopefully) any seventh-grader knows is the creation of children. Contraception separates the unitive from the pro-creative, insisting on having the pleasure of sex while cutting off its biological purposes.
**
Why do we care? Because separating the emotional from the physical leads to disorders, with sexuality as much as food**. Skeptics may scoff, but consider this quote from Sigmund Freud (no friend of the Catholic Church, mind you!):

• ** “The common characteristic of all perversions… is that they have abandoned reproduction as their aim. We term sexual activity perverse when it has renounced the aim of reproduction and follows the pursuit of pleasure as an independent goal. And so you realize that the turning point in the development of sexual life lies in its subjugation to the purpose of reproduction. Everything this side of the turning point, everything that has given up this purpose and serves the pursuit of pleasure alone, must carry the term “perverse” and as such be regarded with contempt.” [Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York, Boni and Liveright, 1920, p. 273]***

**Thus, where separating the pleasure of eating from the biological purpose of eating leads to eating disorders, the separation of the pleasure of sexuality from the biological purpose of sex leads to sexual disorders, or perversions. **Does this mean every couple that uses contraception will become perverts? Not necessarily. However, the dangers to our culture of a contraceptive mentality are undeniable for one who looks honestly at our cultural history.

Until recently, all Christian churches, Catholic and protestant, were opposed to artificial contraception. Church fathers as early as Clement of Alexandria in 195 A.D. wrote against it in his work The Instructor of Children. Even the first protestant writers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin spoke against artificial contraception in their writings. Luther called contraception “…a most disgraceful sin…far more atrocious than incest and adultery,” and Calvin called contraception “wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit.”

Less than 100 years have passed since the first protestant church accepted contraception at the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. Since that time, Western culture has come to see children as problems to be avoided rather than blessings to be celebrated. If I sound off base, ask a mother of more than four children how often she’s heard cruel comments versus praises about the size of her family.

Some have argued that the use of contraception prevents abortion. Unfortunately thus far, the opposite has happened. Abortion for many is no longer seen as murder. Instead it’s hailed as a civil right only sexually repressed, women-hating foods would oppose.

This demand for a woman’s alleged control over her body is more than a desire to avoid morning sickness. For a person who will not acknowledge the existence of God or Heaven, the sexual act is the closest to the transcendent that they will experience. Abortion and contraception thus go hand-in-hand, for both allow those addicted to the pleasure of sexual activity to avoid its biological purpose, and both are seen as essential to enjoying sexual pleasure without its corresponding responsibility for new life.

 

[Thorolfr]

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. the author is only talking about the case in sub-Saharan Africa and says that condoms have indeed prevented the spread of diseases such as AIDS in some places and in some populations (such as among gay men). He also says that he is not anti-condom:

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them).

Don’t misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship.

 

[ATraveller]

Let’s fix that quote from the professor so it reflects reality:

Let me quickly add that condom promotion -]has/-] seemed to have worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through -]commercial sex/-] prostitution and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them).

All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who -]will not or cannot /-] choose not to remain in a mutually faithful relationship.

 

[Thorolfr]

Let’s fix that quote from the professor so it reflects reality:

You’re changes don’t make much difference in most cases. “Commercial sex” is just another way of saying “prostitution” and “choose not to” is hardly any different from “will not”. As for the change of “has” to “seemed to”, you have not given any evidence that condoms have not indeed worked to stem the spread of HIV in Thailand and Cambodia.

 

[AiyanaS]

I was reading in an article the other day which talked about two traits consistently found in couples who had stood the test of time. It was a longitudinal study. The traits were thankfulness and respect. If people were more thankful and less demanding in their " right" to have sex, relationships would be much happier, I think. Sex is a privilege and an honor, not a right. And I think it’s important to respect the natural functioning of yours or a spouse’s body.

There is a lot more too a marriage than just having sex. “Thankfulness and respect” can encompass many area of a marriage, not just the sexual part. It can mean not cursing around the other spouse because they ask you not too, not casting blame and staying calm when financial problems arise, not sweating the small stuff, being supportive of one other and not tearing each other down as well as doing small things every so often to show your spouse how much you love them and are thinking of them.

Sex is only one aspect of a marriage, an important one, but only a small part, it’s like the topping. A strong marriage is not founded on sex. Marriage is a partnership and a commitment one makes to love one other person for life, through the ups and downs. It involves mutual respect and compromise. Love is a action, not just a feeling.

The reason society today has such a high divorce rate is because people go into marriage thinking once they marry they will have a happily ever after and never be unhappy again. People enter marriage for the wrong reasons (ex. Escape poverty; family pressure; blinded by hormones; want someone to love them). Marriage is a commitment and a lot of people call it quits when they realize it’s too hard, they’re not happy anymore, or that marriage is too much work. They bail without even trying, they just want out, as they never fully grasped what keeping a commitment to an imperfect person meant. They don’t like the idea of weathering the bad times, as some bad times are just too hard to deal with (ex. One spouse develops a mysterious chronic illness and is now bedridden or one spouse ends up addicted to drugs and/or alcohol). Marriage is 50/50, but sometimes it can be 40/60, 80/20 during tough times. Abuse, however, is an exception of course and depends on individual judgement of their situation. Wouldn’t expect someone to stay with anyone who beats them and tries to kill them.

 

[AiyanaS]

With your line of reasoning, such a gentle and loving heart as yours should then deny every human life, since it’s guaranteed that every life will face a difficult amount of suffering.

I’m so glad my friend has a beautiful little daughter with a genetic disease that she was born with. It’s been a great struggle for the family, but because of it, they are strong and are all thankful for the things and many people that they do have in their life. She is one happy little girl, and her mom has grown to be an incredible woman. I love that little girl, and I’m thankful that her wisdom and happiness can be shared with my son and with our family. God brings incredible things from suffering, that is if we believe in Him and have a Christian attitude towards it.

The sufferings of this present life can’t hold a candle to the joy that is to come. I think a Christian who truly believes this should give every suffering life a chance so that they might be able to be with Christ and our brothers and sisters in heaven for eternity.

Suffering comes in many forms and degrees. There is a major difference between someone gradually losing muscle tone until they require a ventilator to breathe, dependent on laxatives to use the restroom, living in chronic pain, enduring painful procedure after painful procedure their entire childhood into adulthood (if they live that long) just so their family can keep them alive another day and having to be depend on a cocktail of drugs daily just to survive (I’m referencing various diseases not describing only one) versus someone who the worst thing they endure is a broken bone, family death, heartbreak and other disappointments. The difference between the two is, one comes from the down falls of living life, the other is often the result of parental decision to roll the dice with known and terrible conditions => kid losing genetic lottery and being condemn before they’re even born.

Make the best of a bad situation but be smart enough not to repeat it, let alone allowing the components that can lead to that situation be able to meet in the first place. Especially when it primarily impacts the life of another. And arguing how a child with a disease gives a family and friends great joy and has helped them grow, though great for the family, is a selfish outlook and terrible reason to even consider placing that same burden onto another innocent child. It is the child that lives with that condition, not there parents.

I have a friend with spina bifida who travels around to different schools educating high schoolers about spina bifida (to help combat ignorance of disabilities) and the importance of taking folic acid during pregnancy because they want to decrease the amount of people born like them. They have the worse form too, and it is the worst form of spina bifida that is also most common and almost always caused by lack of folic acid in the woman’s diet leading to neural tube defects within the first trimester. If I follow your line of reasoning, how dare my friend want to educate people how to prevent their disorder and thus deprive those future parents the chance at having the blessing of raising a special needs child like my friend. If I follow your line of reasoning, it is wrong to want to stop the spread of hereditary diseases from generation to generation because the pain that child experiences on Earth, as a direct result of there condition, is insignificant.

Know why my friend does what they do? They know their condition stinks and they don’t want too see others end up like them. They can’t feel their legs, are dependent of crutches/wheelchair to get around, experience discrimination due to their disability, suffer chronic pain, feel left out when they can’t join in activities other able bodied people can, have to be extra cautious because well, they can’t exactly get up and run away from danger and have an extensive medical history. Sure they keep positive and make the best of the bad genetic hand life gave them, as having any disability (mental or physical) only makes someone different not less, but if they could help play a role in decreasing the amount of people born like them, they see that as a positive, NOT a negative.

Also wanted to add that wanting to avoid having more kids, and taking precautions to prevent that from happening, in fear that they’ll inherit a hereditary disease doesn’t mean people already alive with that disease should never have existed in the first place. Like I said before, make best of bad situation but live and learn and know not to repeat the situation in the future, if situation is avoidable. People need to act responsibly, BEFORE conception even occurs, if they know that a child could be born with a disease or brought into a dangerous situation. Contraceptive methods and even sterilization use are preventative measures and if a couple feels that is what they need to do and is in the best interest of there family, than so be it.

You’re wondering how this is this abusive?
By demanding they shut off a healthy and functioning part of themselves in order to have sex with you.

I’d rather shut off my reproductive organs as a preventative measure than be responsible for bringing a child with my condition into the world. I would never forgive myself if I ever did such a thing. For me, that is a prudent decision.

 

[ATraveller]

You’re changes don’t make much difference in most cases.

“Commercial sex” is just another way of saying “prostitution”

It’s a way for some to make prostitution a more pleasant sounding job. It’s only considered ‘academic’ because enough people in academia wanted it to be that way. There’s nothing wrong with the term ‘prostitution.’

“choose not to” is hardly any different from “will not”.

I was targeting ‘cannot’ but included more for grammatical and simplicity reasons.

As for the change of “has” to “seemed to”, you have not given any evidence that condoms have not indeed worked to stem the spread of HIV in Thailand and Cambodia.

I don’t know which study that is and I believe, like most studies in these matters, a correlation. That’s something that warrants further investigation but I wouldn’t claim it’s guaranteed. There could be other variables involved. Without the actual study I will take this sceptical approach. And for good reason because of the less than truthful claims many people now believe like contraception reduces abortion, safe injection sites are effective in saving lives or fat is worse than sugar.

 

[faithsmind]

Aiyana,

If you profess to be a Catholic and receive Holy Communion, but practice birth control with your husband, you will face the possibility of eternal damnation unless you seek His mercy.

If you choose to do this, then so be it, but I pray Jesus have mercy on your soul.

 

[faithsmind]

I needed this video for myself today, too.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSayMXTaQY8

Here’s the 45 min. on him:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=e0oRBKbRYnY

 

[AiyanaS]

Aiyana,

If you profess to be a Catholic and receive Holy Communion, but practice birth control with your husband, you will face the possibility of eternal damnation unless you seek His mercy.

If you choose to do this, then so be it, but I pray Jesus have mercy on your soul.

You have your opinion and I’ll have mine. Thankfully I actually care about the children I might bring into the world and take into consideration the impact my decision might have on there life, and want to take responsible actions BEFORE a child gets conceived. Its obvious not everyone does.