Issues with Catholic teaching on procreation

[Rau]

They’ve only “gone awry” because you declare it so.

The point still stands - if you follow poor diet and exercise habits, high BP and cholesterol will naturally occur.

Popping a pill to offset the consequences of these natural bodily responses is quintessentially the frustration of a natural state.

By that reasoning, all states are “good, healthy and natural” by virtue simply if “being”. A healthy body or one taken over by skin cancer are not distinguishable - neither warrants intervention more than the other. The idea of “restoring normal function” is meaningless. Makes sense!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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

Not exactly. The act is always good (as long as it is consensual), the result may or may not ne desirable, based upon the circumstances.

The idea of abstinence is akin to fasting when one does not wish to gain weight, instead of maintaining a healthy diet.

 

[steve93]

So do you consider female fertility a design error hence the need for the birth control pill?

Well that actually does bring up a good point. Most species are only fertile a certain time of the year.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

Why? How much “multiply” do you assume was in God’s mind?

How much do you? You have said that God told us to multiply. That He did. But at what point are we allowed to stop multiplying? As I said in another post…I am not challenging the idea of not using contraception…but rather where does creating babies end? And why should we have to stop engaging in a healthy sexual relationship with our spouse to avert having children? Sex is a gift from God. Granted that conceiving is a product of it (notice I did not say byproduct) but why must we always see conceiving as a possibility?

 

[faithsmind]

Ok, but the difference Btwn BP meds and birth control is that there is an ACT between two consenting individuals involved.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s a weak comparison. So perhaps it is a poor argument, or else we aren’t understanding it correctly. I’m just saying that we should not compare those natural states. Even though aging may be a natural process, and reproduction is a natural process, it’s still immoral and wrong to treat reproduction of human beings as an unwanted natural process. Life MUST, MUST always be honored if one is to have intercourse. And perhaps it is immoral and wrong to treat aging as an unwanted process as well. Abnormal diseases or sicknesses are natural processes, and God allows them. But it’s immoral to equate them with child-bearing. It seems that all your beliefs keep going back to this same negative belief that life=death. Population explosion is bad. I frankly don’t feel the same way.

 

[Rau]

How much do you? You have said that God told us to multiply. That He did. But at what point are we allowed to stop multiplying? As I said in another post…I am not challenging the idea of not using contraception…but rather where does creating babies end? And why should we have to stop engaging in a healthy sexual relationship with our spouse to avert having children? Sex is a gift from God. Granted that conceiving is a product of it (notice I did not say byproduct) but why must we always see conceiving as a possibility?

Did I say God told us to multiply? Perhaps you confuse me with another poster?

We are told to love our neighbor too. Give alms to the poor. How much?

Positive precepts are not definitive (unlike the negative precepts). We get to judge.

 

[Lucretius]

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.

And you should, because abortion is a matter of justice and so a more grave sin than artificial contraceptive use (a sin against temperance). The ideal though is that people should avoid both. I’d rather see a theft than a robbery, but I’d rather see neither more so, right?

 

[Lucretius]

Also I see some social justice issues with the prohibition of condoms

The reason I’m against contracepting is because I find the action promotes a general mindset of infertility, and that it is a inhuman and beasty and enslaving way to avoid pregnancy. Or, as Chesterton puts it, birth control means no birth and no control.

God is love, and he is the Creator. He Created us out of his mercy and love. Even in his own inner life, it is the love between the Father and the Son from which the Spirit proceeds. This implies that love has an inherent tendency towards creation. We see this in friendships: great friendships produce good theology (St. Basil and St. Gregory), philosophy (St. Thomas and St. Bonoventure), works of art, inventions, etc., etc. Friendship, loving parental relationships, etc., all are naturally inclined towards creativity.

Erotic love is no different, but is a special case, because it has the potential to create a person. It is clear that the fulfillment, completion, perfection, full actualization, etc., of erotic love and a sexual relationship is in the procreation and raising of a child from the union of the lovers, and it is clear that people are greater than philosophies, works of art, and all these other things that are personable but still not persons.

And so, a loving couple naturally has a mindset inclined towards the procreation and the raising of children, when it is prudent to do so, and put the desire for more money and vacations and other stuff and all those other things, behind their desire for people, which of course includes those little persons we call children.

A problem arises when a couple puts excess money, excess luxary goods, a general greed, before the desire for children. What’s even worst is a disordered dislike for children. I think most can see why. There is something horrid about a couple saying “we’re done” without any hint of sorrow. You don’t feel any sadness that you will not get to meet another person that has resulted from you and your spouses relationship?

This of course doesn’t mean that couples who abstain because of prudent reasons are wrong though: financial issues, overwhelmed with raising the children you have now, health, etc. are all good reasons to avoid more children. But a good couple is often sad because these realities make it difficult to have children.

What I’m critiquing is a general mindset that puts the desire for children below lesser goods like money, and even one that makes children inherently undesirable. I’m attacking a certain kind of disordered intention or motivation, not a specific kind of action or behavior. Not every act of procreation must be intended for procreation, but we should want our marriages to procreate as much as is prudent.

In our hearts, we should want to have children, as eros, erotic love, is essentially, among other things, the inclination to have and raise children in union with the beloved, and is fulfilled, completed, fully actualized, and perfected in reaching this end, as married couples can tell you. A marriage that generally avoids children because of excessive selfish reasons is simply avoiding its own fulfilment, its perfection, its full potential. Such an approach in marriage acts against a loving marriage’s natural tendency too. In fact, such an approach is even a sign of a lack of love in the marriage.

And, from a theological view, a mindset avoiding or set against children is also set against creation, and thus the Creator. It is avoiding the potential to partake in God’s own creative power because of excessive selfishness. It is infertile, like all sin.

So, not every particular sex act must be intended for procreation, but rather that a general sexual relationship should intend children joyfully and in wonder. Contracepting tends to solidify a couples inclination against children, the evidence being clearly seen in our culture and society.

 

[Lucretius]

But of course, it is also clear that one can avoid pregnancy without falling into this mindset, as NFP use and what I said about “prudent reasons” will tell you. So, why couldn’t we use contraceptives while still maintaining the general mindset in favor of children, despite the potential difficult in do so? In other words, we know the “contracepting mentality” is disordered, but why is the particular use of contraceptives immoral, at least usually?

In Catholic circles, we tend to talk about the “two ends” of sexual relationships: procreation and unity. This is true, but actually is not the whole truth. St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and St. John Paul the Great also talk about another major purpose of marriage: developing the virtue of sexual temperance, ordering concupiscence, mastering the sexual passions and integrating them into our complete person.

The problem with using contraceptives rather than NFP to avoid pregnancy becomes clear: the later can promote control over one’s sexual passions, making one have to say no to their desires, and thus keep one from becoming enslave to them, by periodic abstaining. In contraceptive use, on the other hand, the sexual appetite can be indulged in without pregnancy whenever, and so we tend to lose the ability to say no to it, to be free to act against it whenever it is arrosed.

Do you know why we neuter animals? Because we know they can’t control themselves. Contracepting is a temporary neutering, treating people like beasts who mindlessly act on their sexual passions at whim, instead of like a man, who should be and his truly happy only when he is a master of his own passions and actions.

And, from a theological view, if he can’t master himself, how can he love his God with all of himself, and love his neighbor as himself, if his self is not free and whole and ordered? How can a man whose inner life is enslaved to passions and disintegrated from himself love with all his being? How can a man who cannot love himself correctly love his neighbor as himself?

In summary, contraceptive use tends against the fulfillment of erotic love in birth, and against control over the sexual passions…there is “no birth and no control.” And this is why the major reasons Church is against it, I think.

Sorry if this post is a little fatty and disorganized, but I think these reasons, coupled with the perverted facility argument, makes a strong moral case against contracepting

Christi pax.

 

[Rosebud77]

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

and many who stayed, here in ireland, use contraception.

 

[Rosebud77]

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

Not at all; far from it. But that having more children than you can feed and clothe is not acceptable or compassionate.

Many need to stop after 2 or 3.

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

well said,

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

That is an incredible and… words fail… judgmental statement. Abusive? A couple knowing they cannot feed or clothe a further child? Or respecting the body and mind of a woman who has had more children than she can cope with?

 

[Rosebud77]

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

so having more children than is reasonable is not abusive?

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

Well no. It is YOUR intransigence and lack of respect for your wife and her needs and beliefs that is the issue here.

Nothing to do with birth control

 

[Rau]

…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.

It is certainly not “catholic” to favour “unchecked human-reproduction”.

What’s curious is that some hold that there is a dichotomy (applicable everywhere, not just in poor countries with limited education), viz:

• We must have contraception, OR
• We must have “unchecked human-reproduction” leading to starvation, death on other social crises.

I heard a medical person recently speaking about the Zika virus and she remarked that it was crazy to issue a public health warning about prevalence of Zika in a particular area unless those people had access to contraception, because if people have no access to contraceptives, they have NO MEANS AT ALL to avoid a Zika infected baby.

 

[Rau]

Not at all; far from it. But that having more children than you can feed and clothe is not acceptable or compassionate.

Many need to stop after 2 or 3.

Or 1, or 8 or…

Is anyone disagreeing with your premise that there comes a time for nearly all parents when the prudent course becomes (and may remain) to avoid a further pregnancy?

 

[ThundersnowIV]

Or 1, or 8 or…

Is anyone disagreeing with your premise that there comes a time for nearly all parents when the prudent course becomes (and may remain) to avoid a further pregnancy?

 

[PseuTonym]

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.

The functioning of a system that involves more than one person isn’t merely a matter of medicine. Reproduction involves more than one person. Breastfeeding and communication also involve more than one person. This might explain why speech-language pathology isn’t considered to be a branch of medicine.

“Better” and “more normally” might be conflicting goals. Given that the ordinary member of the population makes no contribution to medical research, institutional efforts to achieve greater normality could include a goal of redirecting the few abnormal individuals who have been attempting to make contributions to medical research to cease and desist, and pursue other goals.

According to Wikipedia, there is reason to believe that Fyodor Dostoevsky, the poet Robert Burns, and Lewis Carroll (pen name of the author of Alice in Wonderland) all suffered from the psychiatric disorder known as “hypergraphia.”

Dairy cows may receive a diagnosis from a doctor of animal medicine (known as a “veterinarian”). On the other hand, a lactating woman who seeks calves to feed would be considered as suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Apparently, a vet who cares for dairy cows is participating in a system that – although normal in the sense of established – involves deliberate malfunction. After all, the function of a cow’s udder or mammary gland isn’t to provide milk to adult human beings, or even to provide milk to infant human beings.

 

[AiyanaS]

The lust and objectification take place when my wife and I engage in unchaste relations due to her lack of wanting to engage in the marital act. Not to be graphic, but during those instances, I’m “using her” for my own needs and while she is a willing participant, she is not receiving anything out of it. It’s totally a one way street.

This is happening because she’s not open to life and I currently do not have the willpower to remain in a state of continence.

You’re not objectifying your wife. Wanting to have sex with your wife, who agrees to it, isn’t objectifying her. Objectifying someone is using them to make yourself feel good no matter what, even if they don’t want too you force it on them anyway. If your wife said no to sex if you asked would you force her to have sex anyway? If no, then you aren’t objectifying her body. Objectification means treating a person like a commodity or object without regard to that person’s personality or dignity. So what if she’s not open to a pregnancy each and every time. It’s her body that carries the baby, not yours. She has her reasons for not wanting a baby. How is your wife not receiving anything out of having consentual sex anyway? Is it just because she can’t get pregnant?