Natural Law, Condoms & Blindfolds, Difference?

[D0UBTFIRE]

So in trying to understand why contraception is prohibited, I’ve come across this quote from Fulton Sheen that has made me even more uncomfortable with the Church’s teaching. I’m hoping someone will be able to bring some clarity to this. Here is the quote in italics:
Just suppose that a vast majority of people went around with their eyes blindfolded and their ears plugged up. We would very soon have a papal encyclical which would oppose that. And the Church would say, “It is not right to blindfold your eyes or to plug up your ears. Does not reason, does not the natural law tell you that the eyes were meant for seeing and that the ears were made for hearing? Therefore, you must allow these organs to work out the function for which God created them.”

There indeed would be many that would say “Oh, the Catholic Church is opposed to eye control. The Catholic Church is in opposition to ear control.” Certainly! Because reason tells us why these organs were made. So too, a husband and wife were made in a certain way and God created male and female in a certain way, and therefore these organs are to be permitted to function according to the way that God made them. *

Okay, so from this quote you get the argument that organs made by God should be used as God intended them. I read a little background on the topic and found that these ideas on Natural Law come from Aristotle, then Aquinas and that he even used an example of walking on your hands and how that’s not a big deal, etc. So I’m a bit familiar with the reasoning of why contraceptives are prohibited based on Natural Law. However, I don’t think that Aquinas was talking about people walking on their hands all of the time - versus Fulton Sheen is talking about wearing blindfolds and ear plugs all the time by mass numbers of people and that based on Natural Law the Church would condemn that. So here is my confusion/question:

Obviously ALWAYS wearing a blindfold frustrates the God-given purpose of the eyes, which is sight. But certainly the Church would never condemn frustrating the purpose of the eyes SOMETIMES, such as in wearing a blindfold for playing a birthday party game or for being led to a surprise by a friend. At least, I think that if they said that even wearing a blindfold sometimes was immoral, I might just have to ignore them on that because my conscience says that that is too ridiculous to be Truth. Now, I’m sure you can see the analogy. I can clearly understand a prohibition on contraception (I’m just talking barrier methods, not abortifiacients) if people are using it ALL the time, never ever being open to life, and especially if they have an attitude against life in the case where they conceive despite their contraceptives. However, I can not wrap my mind around the complete prohibition of contraceptives, because using condoms sometimes (to help space children further apart* or to make conception less likely under certain circumstances) seems no different in morality to me than using blindfolds sometimes. Yes, condoms frustrate the purpose of the sexual organs, like blindfolds frustrate the purpose of the eyes…but provided that this “frustration” taking place isn’t taking place ALL the time…what exactly is the big deal???

*I put an asterisk after “space children further apart” because in some of these forums I’ve seen people ask WHY would any married couple want to use condoms if they can use NFP and not have to use condoms - and in case you aren’t aware, I would like to clarify that often times for females, which includes me, often times the fertile phase of NFP is the only time we’re really really interested in sexual relations. During ovulation I’m like a horny teenage boy and no amount of reasoning is going to make me stop trying to pounce my husband - I think even if my life were in danger if I got pregnant I would still forget about that and try to get him in bed. Just saying - for all you “why would you want to use a condom?” types.

 

[Tyrion]

A very good and valid question. Suppose one considers the mouth, which is the “(name removed by moderator)ut” of the digestive tract. The mouth was “designed” for eating. Yet, people “abuse” this intended purpose of the mouth by using it for something it was not “designed” for… speaking, singing, etc… If EVERYONE would ALWAYS use the mouth for speaking (and never for eating), the human race woul die out. But one can use the mouth sometimes for eating, other times for singing… and there is no harm. By the same token, the sexual organs can be used sometimes for procreation, other times for pleasure only… and everything is just honkey-dorey. To assert that these organs MUST be always used with procreation in mind (being “open” to it) is simply illogical - not just irrational. By the way, if everyone would be celibate all the time (as the members of the clergy are SUPPOSED to be) then the human race would be extinct very soon. Just like temporary celibacy (if one is so inclined) is harmless, so is temporary “pleasure seeking”.

 

[runningdude]

So in trying to understand why contraception is prohibited, I’ve come across this quote from Fulton Sheen that has made me even more uncomfortable with the Church’s teaching. I’m hoping someone will be able to bring some clarity to this. Here is the quote in italics:
Just suppose that a vast majority of people went around with their eyes blindfolded and their ears plugged up. We would very soon have a papal encyclical which would oppose that. And the Church would say, “It is not right to blindfold your eyes or to plug up your ears. Does not reason, does not the natural law tell you that the eyes were meant for seeing and that the ears were made for hearing? Therefore, you must allow these organs to work out the function for which God created them.”

There indeed would be many that would say “Oh, the Catholic Church is opposed to eye control. The Catholic Church is in opposition to ear control.” Certainly! Because reason tells us why these organs were made. So too, a husband and wife were made in a certain way and God created male and female in a certain way, and therefore these organs are to be permitted to function according to the way that God made them. *

Okay, so from this quote you get the argument that organs made by God should be used as God intended them. I read a little background on the topic and found that these ideas on Natural Law come from Aristotle, then Aquinas and that he even used an example of walking on your hands and how that’s not a big deal, etc. So I’m a bit familiar with the reasoning of why contraceptives are prohibited based on Natural Law. However, I don’t think that Aquinas was talking about people walking on their hands all of the time - versus Fulton Sheen is talking about wearing blindfolds and ear plugs all the time by mass numbers of people and that based on Natural Law the Church would condemn that. So here is my confusion/question:

Obviously ALWAYS wearing a blindfold frustrates the God-given purpose of the eyes, which is sight. But certainly the Church would never condemn frustrating the purpose of the eyes SOMETIMES, such as in wearing a blindfold for playing a birthday party game or for being led to a surprise by a friend. At least, I think that if they said that even wearing a blindfold sometimes was immoral, I might just have to ignore them on that because my conscience says that that is too ridiculous to be Truth. Now, I’m sure you can see the analogy. I can clearly understand a prohibition on contraception (I’m just talking barrier methods, not abortifiacients) if people are using it ALL the time, never ever being open to life, and especially if they have an attitude against life in the case where they conceive despite their contraceptives. However, I can not wrap my mind around the complete prohibition of contraceptives, because using condoms sometimes (to help space children further apart* or to make conception less likely under certain circumstances) seems no different in morality to me than using blindfolds sometimes. Yes, condoms frustrate the purpose of the sexual organs, like blindfolds frustrate the purpose of the eyes…but provided that this “frustration” taking place isn’t taking place ALL the time…what exactly is the big deal???

*I put an asterisk after “space children further apart” because in some of these forums I’ve seen people ask WHY would any married couple want to use condoms if they can use NFP and not have to use condoms - and in case you aren’t aware, I would like to clarify that often times for females, which includes me, often times the fertile phase of NFP is the only time we’re really really interested in sexual relations. During ovulation I’m like a horny teenage boy and no amount of reasoning is going to make me stop trying to pounce my husband - I think even if my life were in danger if I got pregnant I would still forget about that and try to get him in bed. Just saying - for all you “why would you want to use a condom?” types.

Fulton Sheen used an analogy. It serves only to illustrate by example why contraception is immoral, but does not explain directly the exact moral imperative to remain open to life. You have pushed his metaphor beyond it logical limits.

 

[SonCatcher]

The analogy is incomplete but appropriate. This hypothetical fad of wearing blindfolds necessarily presumes that these blindfolded people go about their normal business for which sight is required (e.g. driving, hunting). For the earplugs, it could be a doctor wearing them while his patient is describing symptoms.

I certainly would not want to leave my house under such circumstances.

 

[fix]

Obviously ALWAYS wearing a blindfold frustrates the God-given purpose of the eyes, which is sight. But certainly the Church would never condemn frustrating the purpose of the eyes SOMETIMES, such as in wearing a blindfold for playing a birthday party game or for being led to a surprise by a friend. At least, I think that if they said that even wearing a blindfold sometimes was immoral, I might just have to ignore them on that because my conscience says that that is too ridiculous to be Truth. Now, I’m sure you can see the analogy. I can clearly understand a prohibition on contraception (I’m just talking barrier methods, not abortifiacients) if people are using it ALL the time, never ever being open to life, and especially if they have an attitude against life in the case where they conceive despite their contraceptives. However, I can not wrap my mind around the complete prohibition of contraceptives, because using condoms sometimes (to help space children further apart* or to make conception less likely under certain circumstances) seems no different in morality to me than using blindfolds sometimes. Yes, condoms frustrate the purpose of the sexual organs, like blindfolds frustrate the purpose of the eyes…but provided that this “frustration” taking place isn’t taking place ALL the time…what exactly is the big deal???

*I put an asterisk after “space children further apart” because in some of these forums I’ve seen people ask WHY would any married couple want to use condoms if they can use NFP and not have to use condoms - and in case you aren’t aware, I would like to clarify that often times for females, which includes me, often times the fertile phase of NFP is the only time we’re really really interested in sexual relations. During ovulation I’m like a horny teenage boy and no amount of reasoning is going to make me stop trying to pounce my husband - I think even if my life were in danger if I got pregnant I would still forget about that and try to get him in bed. Just saying - for all you “why would you want to use a condom?” types.

Take a look at this piece:

Contraceptive intercourse, as we have seen, is contra-ceptive because it
necessarily includes the choice to set aside or destroy the openness of the
act of sexual union to the good of transmitting life. The person who
chooses to have intercourse contraceptively is saying that it is not good
that this act is open to life, that it is not good that he or she is
fertile. Rather the contraceptor is saying that his or her procreative
power, his or her fertility is, here and now, not something good, but to
the contrary a disvalue or disease or evil. He or she is saying that
fertility is not a wonderfully good power of the human person, something
participating in the goodness of the human person. It may be a useful good,
or “bonum utile,” something good for something other than itself, a
“functional” good that can and indeed ought to be destroyed when it comes
into conflict with what is really humanly and personally good, namely the
unitive good of human sexuality.

To put it briefly, those who accept contraception recognize that it
requires an anti-procreative choice, the choice to set aside or get rid of
or destroy fertility and the openness of the act of coition to the good of
transmitting human life. Yet they argue that this choice is morally good
“because” the procreative aspect of our sexuality is not, for them, a
personal good but rather a merely functional good dependent for its “human,
personal” goodness on other aspects of the human person.32

The Church and human intelligence both insist that the human body, bodily
life, and the procreative dimension of our sexuality are “personal” goods,
goods of the human person, not goods for the human person…

The choice to contracept, therefore, is a morally wrong choice because it
is the choice to set aside or destroy something that is really good, namely
our own fertility and the openness of the act of sexual union to the great
good of transmitting human life.38 It is just as wrong to set aside this
good as it is to set aside the good of friendship in the act of sexual
union, a point that Pope Paul VI makes quite effective in his perceptive
account of the meaning of marital life and of the marital act.39

 

[RoseMary131]

So in trying to understand why contraception is prohibited, I’ve come across this quote from Fulton Sheen that has made me even more uncomfortable with the Church’s teaching. I’m hoping someone will be able to bring some clarity to this. deal???

I would like to clarify that often times for females, which includes me, often times the fertile phase of NFP is the only time we’re really really interested in sexual relations. During ovulation I’m like a horny teenage boy and no amount of reasoning is going to make me stop trying to pounce my husband - I think even if my life were in danger if I got pregnant I would still forget about that and try to get him in bed. Just saying - for all you “why would you want to use a condom?” types.

Dear Doubfire,

You are so wise in searching to understand the teachings of the Church.

I think in your search you have found more confusion and I hope I can help just a little.

An analogy isn’t always the best way to explain something. If it only brings more confusion, then search in a different way. Please don’t let the “blind-fold” example keep you from what you are looking for…why are barrier methods to try to prevent pregnancy not acceptable by the Church.

This may be an area that you search also from a spiritual aspect.

Sometimes God can help our hearts to understand before we can fully explain it. Maybe you can make this one of your prayer intentions - or an intention of your and your husband’s prayers together.

God designed the woman’s body to desire sexual relations with her husband during her most fertile time - as you experience.

Please forgive me if this is being rude and while this may not help you understand Church teaching against barrier contraception - maybe it would be helpful to find a way of increasing romance during your non-fertile time. With an increase desire during those times, maybe the days you are abstaining from sexual intercourse would not be as hard.

Many, many couples are in your same situation - a very strong desire to have intercourse when the wife’s hormones for sexual relations are the strongest - her fertile time - yet at the same time not ready for another child.

Maybe finding out how other couples handle this part of their relations would be helpful.

You might find help from ccli.org. in seeing how other couples deal with their strong desire during fertile days.

Keep searching and praying - God will continue to guide you and your husband.

 

[raikou]

So in trying to understand why contraception is prohibited, I’ve come across this quote from Fulton Sheen that has made me even more uncomfortable with the Church’s teaching. I’m hoping someone will be able to bring some clarity to this. Here is the quote in italics:
Just suppose that a vast majority of people went around with their eyes blindfolded and their ears plugged up. We would very soon have a papal encyclical which would oppose that. And the Church would say, “It is not right to blindfold your eyes or to plug up your ears. Does not reason, does not the natural law tell you that the eyes were meant for seeing and that the ears were made for hearing? Therefore, you must allow these organs to work out the function for which God created them.”

There indeed would be many that would say “Oh, the Catholic Church is opposed to eye control. The Catholic Church is in opposition to ear control.” Certainly! Because reason tells us why these organs were made. So too, a husband and wife were made in a certain way and God created male and female in a certain way, and therefore these organs are to be permitted to function according to the way that God made them. *

Okay, so from this quote you get the argument that organs made by God should be used as God intended them. I read a little background on the topic and found that these ideas on Natural Law come from Aristotle, then Aquinas and that he even used an example of walking on your hands and how that’s not a big deal, etc. So I’m a bit familiar with the reasoning of why contraceptives are prohibited based on Natural Law. However, I don’'t think that Aquinas was talking about people walking on their hands all of the time - versus Fulton Sheen is talking about wearing blindfolds and ear plugs all the time by mass numbers of people and that based on Natural Law the Church would condemn that. So here is my confusion/question…

I think the purpose of Bishop Sheen’s analogy is to illustrate the general concept that: “To use a human faculty contrary to its purpose is immoral.” From here, we can apply this moral concept to different situations.

An immoral action is a willful evil. An evil is a privation of a good or a negation of “what ought to be.”

A “purpose” is one way of saying what ought to be concerning something. Thus, willful negation of a purpose is immoral.

When is a purpose negated? When something is 1) NOT USED as it’s supposed to or 2) MISUSED contrary to its purpose. By cosidering the purpose for specific cases, you will see that there are purposes that applies in GENERAL and purposes that apply to EVERY SPECIFIC use.

Consider the eyes.

The purpose of eyes in general is to allow humans to see. This purpose is negated when one blinds himself or when they are not used at all, just like in Bishop Sheen’s example. In this respect, we can say that it is ok to close the eyes when we sleep, or blink when we have too. As long as there’s no intention to say that “eyes should not see at all,” the general purpose is not negated.

Their purpose in every specific use (every moment of SEEING) is to see what is good and to avoid what is evil or harmful. Thus, it is wrong to use the eyes to look at pornography, to intrude at other people’s privacy, or to look at blinding lights. In this second aspect, we cannot say “it’s ok to look at porn at this particular time. After all, I am not saying we should look at porn all the time.” It’s a misuse of the eyes everytime.

What about sex?

The purpose of sex in general is to perpetuate the human species. Hence, if everyone will refuse to be married to procreate, I think that would be immoral. However, it is not immoral if only some people choose NOT to engage in sex for a higher calling (such as the celibate religious) if this would not threaten the perpetuation of the human race.

What is the specific purpose of sex in its very act, that is, when people choose to ENGAGE in it? The specific purpose or end of sex is twofold. First, we know that sex during the fertile period is ordained towards the begetting of life - procreation. We know this because it is that particular act’s natural consequence. It is its natural end. Second, its purpose is to unite spouses in a special way in FULL mutual self-giving, as a special sign of married love. These two purposes are not “either-or,” but are inseparable and closely linked.

Thus we see that even temporary frustration of one’s fertility through contraception frustrates and negates the specific end of sex. It BLOCKS the begetting of life WITHIN SEX and sex no longer becomes a sign of full-mutual self-giving. In this sense, it is wrong to say “it’s ok to contracept at this time since I will not contracept in others.”

Here, we also see that practicing Natural Family Planning is not immoral if used for just or legitimate reasons. Temporary abstaining from sex does not violate the general purpose of sex. Having sex during infertile periods does not violate the specific purpose of sex within the sexual act itself.

 

[GEddie]

The difference is that we use our eyes all the time. There are exceptions, e.g., in sleep, and some people do wear blindfolds while asleep, and there is nothing wrong with that.

We do not use our sexual organs all the time. When we do use them, we should be open to procreation, as that is what sexuality is for.

When someone uses contraception, they are negating a natural function of their bodies. While sexuality can be “fun”, it is designed for procreation. Any anatomist can see that, just as the eyes are for sight. Hence the blindfold analogy.

ICXC NIKA

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Take a look at this piece:

Those are a lot of words to say that fertility is good. In theory it sounds beautiful. In reality, if getting pregnant could put a woman’s life at risk and so as a result she can either risk her life or not have sex with her husband for a really really really long time - well, in that case fertility stinks. On some basic human level you’ve got to see eye to eye with me here, no?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Dear Doubfire,

You are so wise in searching to understand the teachings of the Church.

I think in your search you have found more confusion and I hope I can help just a little.

An analogy isn’t always the best way to explain something. If it only brings more confusion, then search in a different way. Please don’t let the “blind-fold” example keep you from what you are looking for…why are barrier methods to try to prevent pregnancy not acceptable by the Church.

This may be an area that you search also from a spiritual aspect.

Sometimes God can help our hearts to understand before we can fully explain it. Maybe you can make this one of your prayer intentions - or an intention of your and your husband’s prayers together.

God designed the woman’s body to desire sexual relations with her husband during her most fertile time - as you experience.

Please forgive me if this is being rude and while this may not help you understand Church teaching against barrier contraception - maybe it would be helpful to find a way of increasing romance during your non-fertile time. With an increase desire during those times, maybe the days you are abstaining from sexual intercourse would not be as hard.

Many, many couples are in your same situation - a very strong desire to have intercourse when the wife’s hormones for sexual relations are the strongest - her fertile time - yet at the same time not ready for another child.

Maybe finding out how other couples handle this part of their relations would be helpful.

You might find help from ccli.org. in seeing how other couples deal with their strong desire during fertile days.

Keep searching and praying - God will continue to guide you and your husband.

Thank you for your encouragement. You sound like the kind of Christian that if I met in person would just exude inner peace and God’s love. I don’t know you but I really like you!

 

[fix]

Those are a lot of words to say that fertility is good. In theory it sounds beautiful. In reality, if getting pregnant could put a woman’s life at risk and so as a result she can either risk her life or not have sex with her husband for a really really really long time - well, in that case fertility stinks. On some basic human level you’ve got to see eye to eye with me here, no?

No. As the quote says would you destroy the unitive aspect of the act for some reason? Would you alter your relationship with you mother to gain needed money? Would you deny your faith for a better job?

See, the martial act has two dimensions that cannot be separated.

 

[Tyrion]

No. As the quote says would you destroy the unitive aspect of the act for some reason?

Destroy? What kind of a “joke” is that? Temporarily suspended is now “destroy”?

See, the martial act has two dimensions that cannot be separated.

Is there a logically contradictory problem there? Or a law of nature which makes the separation impossible? The “marital act” can be performed outside the marriage just fine. And the act has more than 2 “legs”, there is at least one more, namely: “let’s just have fun!”.

 

[JABA]

A very good and valid question. Suppose one considers the mouth, which is the “(name removed by moderator)ut” of the digestive tract. The mouth was “designed” for eating. Yet, people “abuse” this intended purpose of the mouth by using it for something it was not “designed” for… speaking, singing, etc… If EVERYONE would ALWAYS use the mouth for speaking (and never for eating), the human race woul die out. But one can use the mouth sometimes for eating, other times for singing… and there is no harm. By the same token, the sexual organs can be used sometimes for procreation, other times for pleasure only… and everything is just honkey-dorey. To assert that these organs MUST be always used with procreation in mind (being “open” to it) is simply illogical - not just irrational. By the way, if everyone would be celibate all the time (as the members of the clergy are SUPPOSED to be) then the human race would be extinct very soon. Just like temporary celibacy (if one is so inclined) is harmless, so is temporary “pleasure seeking”.

The mouth was designed just as much for speaking, as it was for eating. If not, it would not be used for speaking in the first place and we would be speaking using another method.

The main purpose of the sexual organs is procreation of the species and this is what my anatomy teacher at uni stated. This explanation has nothing to do with religious doctrine. Any pleasure gained from this procreative union between a man and a women is secondary. This is why the study of the function and composition of the sexual organs is called, reproductive anatomy and not pleasure anatomy.

This is the same way, eating was not designed for pleasure, but nutritional sustenance of the body. Any pleasure gained from eating is secondary to it’s main purpose.

The sexual organs were created for procreation and this cannot be separated from the secondary pleasurable gain. Avoiding the procreative aspect, while only participating in the pleasurable gain is illogical, as this goes against natural function and purpose. It’s just like eating food for pleasure and vomiting it out, to avoid the nutritional sustenance. Not very logical.

 

[fix]

Destroy? What kind of a “joke” is that? Temporarily suspended is now “destroy”?

Is there a logically contradictory problem there? Or a law of nature which makes the separation impossible? The “marital act” can be performed outside the marriage just fine. And the act has more than 2 “legs”, there is at least one more, namely: “let’s just have fun!”.

You have destroyed the function in any particular act you suppress it.
The act is a physical act and a moral act. Once you separate it you change the very nature of the act.

 

[GEddie]

The sexual organs were created for procreation and this cannot be separated from the secondary pleasurable gain. ** Avoiding the procreative aspect, while only participating in the pleasurable gain is illogical, as this goes against natural function and purpose. It’s just like eating food for pleasure and vomiting it out, to avoid the nutritional sustenance. Not very logical.**

And yet, this was perfectly acceptable social practice in the Roman vomitoria of our LORD’s day. Today, we consider this to be a waste of food, and an abuse of the human body.

The day will come when contraceptive sexuality will be seen just as wrongheaded as those Roman banquets. The truth will out.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

The reason I don’t think the analogy works is that the problem with barrier contraception is not simply that it thwarts the proper functioning of a body part. But more importantly, it thwarts the proper functioning of an ACTION, in fact, a holy act. So it would be more appropriate to say that the church would come out against driving in traffic with the eyes and ears plugged, because while wearing a blindfold is not always wrong, cutting off the function of your eyes and ears while driving in traffic certainly would be - it would make it impossible to achieve the proper end of the activity, which is safely getting from one place to another. Not only could you hurt yourself, but you could hurt another person, and I’m sure that if the Church felt the need was there, it would condemn such a practice. In the same way, the little piece of latex is not evil in itself. But when it is used to cut off the function of the reproductive organs during the marital act, it is making it impossible to achieve the proper end of that activity, which is providing true unification of spouses while enabling the possibility of the creation of new life. So remember, it’s not just about body parts, but about actions.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

The reason I don’t think the analogy works is that the problem with barrier contraception is not simply that it thwarts the proper functioning of a body part. But more importantly, it thwarts the proper functioning of an ACTION, in fact, a holy act. So it would be more appropriate to say that the church would come out against driving in traffic with the eyes and ears plugged, because while wearing a blindfold is not always wrong, cutting off the function of your eyes and ears while driving in traffic certainly would be - it would make it impossible to achieve the proper end of the activity, which is safely getting from one place to another. Not only could you hurt yourself, but you could hurt another person, and I’m sure that if the Church felt the need was there, it would condemn such a practice. In the same way, the little piece of latex is not evil in itself. But when it is used to cut off the function of the reproductive organs during the marital act, it is making it impossible to achieve the proper end of that activity, which is providing true unification of spouses while enabling the possibility of the creation of new life. So remember, it’s not just about body parts, but about actions.

Thank you for actually trying to answer my question with words that make some sense. I understand your point, however, having had the experience of using contraception in the past, I can’t see how driving with a blindfold on (which endangers all the other driver’s lives and could cause a castastrophe) compares to trying to prevent fertilization during sex for some very serious reasons.

In thinking about what some others wrote in response, I can kinda understand the argument that sex is a moral action. But I don’t think I see it the way all of you do. So for example the way I see it is, sex is sometimes a moral action, sometimes it’s an immoral action. Sex outside of marriage is immoral, sex within marriage is moral. Looking at naked bodies is a moral action. So admiring the Sistine Chapel or a Doctor examining a patient is moral, but looking at pornography is immoral. Contracepting is a moral action. Contracepting for the sake of never having children or not having anymore for frivolous reasons seems immoral, contracepting because getting pregnant puts your life at risk or because you have way too much on your plate in regards to the kids you already have seems to me to be a morally acceptable action.

 

[ahs]

In thinking about what some others wrote in response, I can kinda understand the argument that sex is a moral action. But I don’t think I see it the way all of you do. So for example the way I see it is, sex is sometimes a moral action, sometimes it’s an immoral action. Sex outside of marriage is immoral, sex within marriage is moral.

By “moral” or “immoral” in this case, do you mean “good” or “bad”? Sex is good when it is ordered to the natural ends that it is designed for. Sex in marriage can be immoral if it is not unitive or procreative, or neither. It is moral when it is both ordered toward procreation AND unification. Removing one aspect or the other disorders the act…disorients the act form its natural ends. Mat I ask why you believe sex outside of marriage to be immoral, yet see no problem with contraception?

Contracepting is a[n] action [concerning morality]. Contracepting for the sake of never having children or not having anymore for frivolous reasons seems immoral,

Why does this seem immoral?

…contracepting because getting pregnant puts your life at risk or because you have way too much on your plate in regards to the kids you already have seems to me to be a morally acceptable action.

Why would this be morally acceptable, yet unmarried sex, or even homosexual “sex”, is not?

 

[fix]

If suppressing the procreative is moral at times then suppressing the unitive aspect should be moral at times? Right?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

So I’ve been reading through some of the responses, and I see a theme. A lot of you argue that contraception destroys the act, contraception changes the nature of the act, the purpose of the act, etc…and YES I agree. Contraception does do that to some extent - it takes away the procreative aspect. It leaves the unitive and “fun” aspect. I get that - in fact, why else would someone use contraception if that is not what they were intending?

What I don’t get is why is that WRONG? Why is it wrong to only want to enjoy one aspect of an act? Sounds like God made eating pleasurable so that we would get nutrition. God made sex pleasurable so that we would procreate. But every once in a while taking away the procreative aspect of sex, or the nutritive aspect of eating hardly seems immoral. Candy has no nutritional value, yet we don’t go around condemning people for enjoying it.