"Open to Life" and "Intent" - NFP vs ABC

[uncleauberon]

magdelaine:

I’m curious, does ABC include withdrawal?

While there is nothing , per se, “artificial” about withdrawal, it is an attempt to make the conjugal act unproductive.

Thus it is considered opposed to natural law and the nature of the conjugal act.

I wouldn’t put it in with ABC myself - but is considered a sinful form of Birth Control. - A kind of side catagory

 

[bear06]

I think a better metaphor would be losing weight. We can choose to lose weight the healthy way by dieting or we can choose to lose weight the unhealthy way by anorexia or bullemia. Yes, the goal appears the same but it isn’t quite. The dieter is usually trying to get healthy by abstaining from certain foods or portion control. The bullemic is trying to lose weight period no matter the toll to their bodies. Of course, the dieter can also have vain motivations which is not a good reason to diet and is usually brought on by self-esteem issues.

 

[svoboda]

No one ever responded to the moral dilemma I posed:

Consider a woman whose husband does not respect NFP and essentially has sex with her whenever he pleases. She lives in a country where women’s rights are not protected, and can’t do anything about it.

She also lives in a country with a high maternal mortality rate (Africa is a good example), and has more kids than she can feed.

Should she go to the UN mission and get sterilized? Or should she obey the Church and keep risking her life and bringing more babies in to the world than she can feed?

Or say the woman has some medical problem (i.e. she could die if she got pregnant) and her husband doesn’t respect her rights and has sex with her as he pleases (culture accepts this behavior).

What should she do, what should she do? What would you do?

–

Or a less extreme example, say a modern Catholic woman has some problem (irregular cycles that someone’s wife here has) that renders effective practice of NFP impossible. Should she and her husband abstain for years? Should they keep having baby after baby?

I think in both of these situations birth control is not immoral. How about you? (Justify your reasoning with something more than “Church says so” explain why it’s just to disallow birth control in those situations.)

Now that I think about it, imagine Catholics hadn’t invented NFP (it’s only been around in the 20th century anyway). What would couples do? One baby after another for the 20 years of woman’s fertility if they get married young? Abstain for those 20 years with a few exceptions?

 

[bear06]

QUOTE=svoboda]No one ever responded to the moral dilemma I posed:

Consider a woman whose husband does not respect NFP and essentially has sex with her whenever he pleases. She lives in a country where women’s rights are not protected, and can’t do anything about it.

She also lives in a country with a high maternal mortality rate (Africa is a good example), and has more kids than she can feed.

Should she go to the UN mission and get sterilized? Or should she obey the Church and keep risking her life and bringing more babies in to the world than she can feed?

If she could run off to the UN for sterilization in a situation like this, why couldn’t she run off to them to ask for assylum? You seem to think it’s easy as pie to run off and have a medical procedure without her husband’s knowledge. Besides that, after a medical procedure as this, generally a woman is told to abstain until she’s somewhat healed. If her husband is going to have sex with her whenever he pleases, do you think that’s going to happen. Don’t you think he might notice her scars and/or pain and take it out on her? Give me a break. If you going to bring up the severest of situations, you might as well look at the reality of your arguments. This might be why nobody addresses them.

Or say the woman has some medical problem (i.e. she could die if she got pregnant) and her husband doesn’t respect her rights and has sex with her as he pleases (culture accepts this behavior).

See above answer. BTW, I know more than a few women with severe diabetes and lupus that have used NFP for years.

What should she do, what should she do? What would you do?

Pray like heck!

Or a less extreme example, say a modern Catholic woman has some problem (irregular cycles that someone’s wife here has) that renders effective practice of NFP impossible. Should she and her husband abstain for years? Should they keep having baby after baby?

I’ve been addressing this left and right. NFP works with irregular cycles!!! It’s obvious that some are making a judgment calls about NFP without knowing the science behind it. I highly recommend taking a course from an NFP instructor. If there were some freakish reason that NFP wouldn’t work for a couple (just throwing this out there since you like to bring up the almost unheard of) and having more children would be a danger to their lives, then yes, it would seem that they should abstain indefinitely or at least until the danger passes. You seem to think the better idea would be to use less effective methods of preventing conception and playing Russian Roulette. If I *knew * I would die if I got pregnant again, for my childrens’ sake, I have little doubt that my husband and I would abstain for the rest of our lives if necessary. I’ll ask him and get back to you if he says otherwise. I’m quite confident he wouldn’t want to lose me to have sex even with the good chance of me dying. Yikes!

I think in both of these situations birth control is not immoral. How about you? (Justify your reasoning with something more than “Church says so” explain why it’s just to disallow birth control in those situations.

The Church knows quite well that sin isn’t the answer to our ills. You seem to think we get to live on forever. The fact is that should we lose our life by putting our faith in God and avoiding sin, more than likely we’re going to get to heaven pretty quick. Try focusing on everlasting life in Paradise rather than what will be fleeting moments of pleasure when eternity starts.

 

[LittleDeb]

svoboda:

No one ever responded to the moral dilemma I posed:

Consider a woman whose husband does not respect NFP and essentially has sex with her whenever he pleases. She lives in a country where women’s rights are not protected, and can’t do anything about it.

She also lives in a country with a high maternal mortality rate (Africa is a good example), and has more kids than she can feed.

Should she go to the UN mission and get sterilized? Or should she obey the Church and keep risking her life and bringing more babies in to the world than she can feed?

Or say the woman has some medical problem (i.e. she could die if she got pregnant) and her husband doesn’t respect her rights and has sex with her as he pleases (culture accepts this behavior).

What should she do, what should she do? What would you do?

–

Or a less extreme example, say a modern Catholic woman has some problem (irregular cycles that someone’s wife here has) that renders effective practice of NFP impossible. Should she and her husband abstain for years? Should they keep having baby after baby?

I think in both of these situations birth control is not immoral. How about you? (Justify your reasoning with something more than “Church says so” explain why it’s just to disallow birth control in those situations.)

I did respond to the moral dilemma you posed. Please read back a few posts. I said that the situation you posed was the one posed by the author of “That Celibate Bachelor was Right” which you claimed to have read.

The author shows how contraception doesn’t elevate respect. It lowers it. The situations you are discussing shows a very narrow view of understanding. None of the solutions to these “moral” dilemmas lies with contraception. In fact, it is contraception that has helped to make your hypothetical man more immoral. Contraception has taught him that there are no consequences for his actions. A point also noted by the author of the article.

NFP does work and it can work for everyone. It might be more difficult for some, but contraception is never the answer. Contraception pokes holes in the fabric of marriage. In doing so, it violates the very foundation of society. So many societal problems have links back to contraception. 1860: The year it all started to crumble. 146 years later is society more moral than it was and therefore more civilized? The answer is no.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

If she could run off to the UN for sterilization in a situation like this, why couldn’t she run off to them to ask for assylum? You seem to think it’s easy as pie to run off and have a medical procedure without her husband’s knowledge. Besides that, after a medical procedure as this, generally a woman is told to abstain until she’s somewhat healed. If her husband is going to have sex with her whenever he pleases, do you think that’s going to happen. Don’t you think he might notice her scars and/or pain and take it out on her? Give me a break. If you going to bring up the severest of situations, you might as well look at the reality of your arguments. This might be why nobody addresses them.

Because if they were accepting people for those reasons every single woman in Africa and the Muslim world might ask for asylum. And just where do you plan to put all those women and girls?

On the other hand, they could potentially give “asylum” for a few days for her to recover from the procedure. They might lie to her husband, say the procedure was done for some other reason.

The lifetime risk of maternal death in Africa is 1 in 16. In the western world it is 1in 2800. And this is just mortality, it says nothing about the physical complications and damage resulting form pregnancy.

“Over 300 million women in the developing world suffer from short-term or long-term illness brought about by pregnancy and childbirth.** 529 000 die each year.”**

Less than 1% of maternal deaths occur in high income countries.

who.int/whr/2005/media_centre/facts_en.pdf

How easy it is for you, a woman who will never have to face these situations to sit here and condemn birth control, which may very well be the only lifeline those women have.

 

[svoboda]

LittleDeb:

I did respond to the moral dilemma you posed. Please read back a few posts. I said that the situation you posed was the one posed by the author of “That Celibate Bachelor was Right” which you claimed to have read.

The author shows how contraception doesn’t elevate respect. It lowers it. The situations you are discussing shows a very narrow view of understanding. None of the solutions to these “moral” dilemmas lies with contraception. In fact, it is contraception that has helped to make your hypothetical man more immoral. Contraception has taught him that there are no consequences for his actions. A point also noted by the author of the article.

NFP does work and it can work for everyone. It might be more difficult for some, but contraception is never the answer. Contraception pokes holes in the fabric of marriage. In doing so, it violates the very foundation of society. So many societal problems have links back to contraception. 1860: The year it all started to crumble. 146 years later is society more moral than it was and therefore more civilized? The answer is no.

Please look at the statistics above, birth control SAVE LIVES!

And not just the mothers, but the children’s as well. Haven’t you seen how poor Africa is? How children there are starving? What is the sense of having more children when you can’t feed the ones you already have?

Good luck convincing those men to use NFP, unless they do it those women should use birth control! It is immoral not to, in my opinion.

 

[LittleDeb]

svoboda:

Please look at the statistics above, birth control SAVE LIVES!

And not just the mothers, but the children’s as well. Haven’t you seen how poor Africa is? How children there are starving? What is the sense of having more children when you can’t feed the ones you already have?

This is getting completely off-topic but I will still respond just to help you understand. Starvation has little to do with population and a whole lot to do with corrupt governments keeping food from the poor. Again, you bring up another point addressed quite well by the author of “That Celibate Bachelor was Right!” She lived and worked in those countries. Please reread the article and refrain from posting inflammatory statistics.

We need to keep this thread on topic or it will get closed down. I for one, think the “open to life” and “intent” debate is worth having. I think, for many people, it is at the heart of the issue of contraception.

 

[LittleDeb]

magdelaine:

I’m curious, does ABC include withdrawal?

This is such a good question. It was one of the first I asked as I sought deeper understanding of Church teaching. It is artificial birth control. It is the original artificial and understanding it first led me down the path of understanding means vs. intent.

Withdrawl on its most shallow level and it’s most deep level has the intent to not complete the marriage act. It is a cruel means to the marriage act because it almost completes it, yet in that last moment severs it. It is truly artificial because it actually changes the mechanics of the marriage act.

My research has shown that this particular form of ABC causes the most dissatisfaction in marriage. I would guess it is because of the literal and emotional emptiness it causes. That part is just a guess from interviews with couples.

 

[johntkd]

vluvski:

A lot of well-meaning NFP supporters throw around terms like “open to life” and “intent” without realizing this is actually detrimental to the case for NFP. Many people also confuse procreation with reproduction. I find this extremely frustrating.

The differentiation between NFP and ABC is about none of these. When I get married in several months, the act of sex will be a complete offering of myself to my new husband because it will be free of any means deliberately used to limit the natural outcome of sex. If any part of one spouse (ie fertility) is withheld or rejected, how can it be a complete giving of self?.

I agree with you 100%
the one that gets me the most is claiming to give of themselves 100% when in reality most couples are actually only giving 50% or less the other 50% is fertile time or cycle time, which lots wont embrace because of sanitary reasons…

Imagine that up to 50% or more of your life denying each other.
and I dont buy into the wording of “sacrifice” its not a sacrifice
when you are doing it to avoid something else (mainly another life being formed)

but as I have read in other threads about this the people who practrice NFP will not understand that thought process at all.
I understand its accepted by the church and that is great.
But it is still a Birth control method and they dont see it that way at all.

I also know that couples use NFP to actually conceive,this also to me takes away the “natural” parts of procreation as well.
but once again it is acceptable.

you cant give of yourself 100% with NFP nor with ABC.
and both means use man made things…

my two cents.
and dont take it as a put down to anyone using either
I am merely stating how i interpret these Birth control methods
and the “special wordings” used by the population to make it sound better than it is…

 

[vluvski]

johntkd:

I agree with you 100%
the one that gets me the most is claiming to give of themselves 100% when in reality most couples are actually only giving 50% or less the other 50% is fertile time or cycle time, which lots wont embrace because of sanitary reasons.

Well, I think you’re misunderstanding my point somewhat, and also misunderstanding what is meant by “giving 100%.”
100% is not the amount of time you spend engaged in the act, nor a percentage of the days you do or don’t have sex. It is about what amount of yourself is being given in any particular act.
I can’t imagine that anyone could say they spend more than 20% of the time giving of themselves on average. I imagine that would be pretty exhausting (just under 5 hours every single day ).

johntkd:

I also know that couples use NFP to actually conceive,this also to me takes away the “natural” parts of procreation as well.
but once again it is acceptable.

Since my analogy may have gotten lost in the sea of posts, I’ll repeat it.
We must eat to live. Sometimes we have a need to monitor what we eat in order to preserve our health. Look back at the post where someone relates NFP and ABC to dieting vs bulemia. Is it unnatural and does it take away from eating that we know and must keep track of nutrients in our food?

Charting for NFP is no less natural than counting calories or limiting fat intake. Sometimes it is necessary to take precautions to stay healthy. Science is not unnatural, as God is as much in control of science as He is anything else.

 

[uncleauberon]

svoboda:

No one ever responded to the moral dilemma I posed:

Consider a woman whose husband does not respect NFP and essentially has sex with her whenever he pleases. She lives in a country where women’s rights are not protected, and can’t do anything about it.

Are they Catholic ?

Well, with a Husband that treats her like meat she has bigger fish to fry than whether ABC is immoral.

Certainly - she may not be in sin because her husband refuses to abstain periodically. and doesn’t care about her health.

She may feel she needs to use ABC to protect herself - in such a case she is committing a wrong. But, the amount of culpability may be less.

It’s an issue for her confessor and not us.

svoboda:

Now that I think about it, imagine Catholics hadn’t invented NFP (it’s only been around in the 20th century anyway). What would couples do? One baby after another for the 20 years of woman’s fertility if they get married young? Abstain for those 20 years with a few exceptions?

Come to think of it - before the 20th century the best Birth Control was “NFP”
Rythm method & Birth spacing through breast feeding
Endorsed by the Catholic Church.

ABC
All other poor attempts were withdrawal, faulty animal skin condoms, douching, packing, or abortive herbs.

They included health risks and/or were not any more effective than the NFP at the time…

ABC effectiveness has improved and so has NFP.

Historically the debate hasn’t changed at all.

 

[Halo]

I think back to the Garden of Eden, when God said eat of the fruit of all the other trees but not of the Tree of Knowledge.

Adam and Eve were put out of Paradise because of disobedience.

The church has said that ABC is wrong. The Church has said that it is acceptable to use NFP.

Obey or disobey is really the question?

 

[Palamite]

Halo,

think back to the Garden of Eden, when God said eat of the fruit of all the other trees but not of the Tree of Knowledge.

Adam and Eve were put out of Paradise because of disobedience.

The church has said that ABC is wrong. The Church has said that it is acceptable to use NFP.

Obey or disobey is really the question?

Aside from the fact that you and I would disagree as to what/where “the Church” (in the Biblical sense) is to be found, I think this kind of “shut up and obey” type of advice will not work because the issue is so contentious amongst so many. It’s not simply a few quacks here and there who have a problem with this in the RCC - it’s quite a few people. Now obviously their having issues with this doesn’t make them right - but it does mean that something better is going to have to be done than simply issuing a document like Humanae Vitae which eveny by RC standards (ala Vatican I) is not an excercise of the “solemn magisterium”. That means ultimatly, it’s persuasiveness is in it’s argumentation - and obviously, there are people who (not simply because they want to be shrill libertines) are not persuaded for various reasons.

 

[fix]

Palamite:

Now obviously their having issues with this doesn’t make them right - but it does mean that something better is going to have to be done than simply issuing a document like Humanae Vitae which eveny by RC standards (ala Vatican I) is not an excercise of the “solemn magisterium”. That means ultimatly, it’s persuasiveness is in it’s argumentation -

For many, no argument will will convince. When Christ walked the earth he suffered many walking away from Him.

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Because if they were accepting people for those reasons every single woman in Africa and the Muslim world might ask for asylum. And just where do you plan to put all those women and girls?

On the other hand, they could potentially give “asylum” for a few days for her to recover from the procedure. They might lie to her husband, say the procedure was done for some other reason.

The lifetime risk of maternal death in Africa is 1 in 16. In the western world it is 1in 2800. And this is just mortality, it says nothing about the physical complications and damage resulting form pregnancy.

“Over 300 million women in the developing world suffer from short-term or long-term illness brought about by pregnancy and childbirth.** 529 000 die each year.”**

Less than 1% of maternal deaths occur in high income countries.

who.int/whr/2005/media_centre/facts_en.pdf

How easy it is for you, a woman who will never have to face these situations to sit here and condemn birth control, which may very well be the only lifeline those women have.

How easy is it for you who doesn’t live there to comment on that. My cousin is a missionary priest in Africa and this he seems to think that it’s a cultural problem more than an abuse problem. Ah, but what does he know? He’s only been there for 30+ years!

You seem to have this delusion that all of the women in Africa are sex slaves to their husbands. You don’t have it right. It’s their faith and way of life for most. Do you actually know any Muslim women? They’re not all terrified of their husbands. I know some that have actually converted because they like the authority men have over their wives.

And it’s quite a joke that you think women who are in abusive situations aren’t going to be beaten if they just disappear for a few days. Also, I don’t know how you think surgery is done but there are usually scars.

You want to bring up extreme situations at least deal with the reality of them. Yes, the mortality rate is high. Do you actually think that it will go down if they start using birthcontrol? No, the rate will still be 1 in 16. The only cure for this will be repairing their society not adding immorality to it. AIDS is only on the rise there. Why? Because we “good people” keep tossing condoms at them like they work.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

How easy is it for you who doesn’t live there to comment on that. My cousin is a missionary priest in Africa and this he seems to think that it’s a cultural problem more than an abuse problem. Ah, but what does he know? He’s only been there for 30+ years!

Okay, but I’ve seen documentaries about women who live in those countries. I’ve seen hidden footage of women’s lives under the Taliban. Above all, I’ve seen terrifying statistics about the quality of women’s lives there. Terrifying statistics about polygamy, about the age at which girls are married off etc.

You seem to have this delusion that all of the women in Africa are sex slaves to their husbands. You don’t have it right. It’s their faith and way of life for most. Do you actually know any Muslim women? They’re not all terrified of their husbands. I know some that have actually converted because they like the authority men have over their wives.

Read above. As for liking men to have authority over their lives, if they’re raised that way sure, they’ll believe it. Most people live the way they’re raised to live.

Does it mean it’s right? To me the whole notion of men having “authority” over women is an evil that should be eliminated. Every single human being should be free.

And it’s quite a joke that you think women who are in abusive situations aren’t going to be beaten if they just disappear for a few days. Also, I don’t know how you think surgery is done but there are usually scars.

They could be sterilized after they give birth. The men never have to be told about it.

You want to bring up extreme situations at least deal with the reality of them. Yes, the mortality rate is high. Do you actually think that it will go down if they start using birthcontrol? No, the rate will still be 1 in 16. The only cure for this will be repairing their society not adding immorality to it. AIDS is only on the rise there. Why? Because we “good people” keep tossing condoms at them like they work.

I think if women start using birth control and having no more than 2 kids the mortality rate will lessen considerably beause so much of it is caused by childbirth/pregnancy related illnesses.

Fewer pregnancies means fewer illnesses means fewer deaths.

If you lived there, would you want to use birth control or have a 1 in 16 risk of dying?

 

[bear06]

Okay, but I’ve seen documentaries about women who live in those countries. I’ve seen hidden footage of women’s lives under the Taliban. Above all, I’ve seen terrifying statistics about the quality of women’s lives there. Terrifying statistics about polygamy, about the age at which girls are married off etc.

Hey, I’m not saying that I agree with this way of life. Christianity is the best but you don’t solve one problem that many of these wives agree with by injecting another problem. Birthcontrol is contrary to their beliefs and you can believe there would be hell to pay if one of these women did it without their husband’s permission. You think life is bad for them now?!

Read above. As for liking men to have authority over their lives, if they’re raised that way sure, they’ll believe it. Most people live the way they’re raised to live.

Does it mean it’s right? To me the whole notion of men having “authority” over women is an evil that should be eliminated. Every single human being should be free.

Sigh! You just don’t understand that many choose to live this way. Shouldn’t that be their freedom? I don’tadvocate abuse in any way, shape or form but I am certainly submissive to my husband.

They could be sterilized after they give birth. The men never have to be told about it.

How exactly do you think this procedure is performed? I think you should read up more on this.

I think if women start using birth control and having no more than 2 kids the mortality rate will lessen considerably beause so much of it is caused by childbirth/pregnancy related illnesses.

Look, for a husband not to be involved, the ABC you so think is the healthy alternative would have to be an IUD or the pill. Do you understand that both of these have some pretty serious health risks? You are trading one ill for another.

Fewer pregnancies means fewer illnesses means fewer deaths.

No, fewer pregnancies simply means fewer people to get sick.

If you lived there, would you want to use birth control or have a 1 in 16 risk of dying?

Well, that’s really what it comes down to doesn’t it. I have the hope of everlasting life in following the teachings of Our Lord. I am willing to die for my Faith. If everyone did the same, we wouldn’t have the ills we have today would we. Husbands wouldn’t be abusing their wives. They wouldn’t be selfish in their sexual practices, etc. Far more people in Africa are dying from “safe sex” then are dying from childbirth and pregnancy all thanks to ABC that is being distributed far and wide.

 

[magdelaine]

fix:

For many, no argument will will convince. When Christ walked the earth he suffered many walking away from Him.

You totally disregard what Palamite said, but then I guess that doesn’t surprise. Yes, for many no argument will convince. But we are talking about devout Catholics that love the Church, love our Lord Jesus Christ, and love to learn about her philosophy, history, and teachings (ahem…people like me). One of the great attractions of the Church for many is how splendidly coherent and scriptural it is; the logic of the true Church shines through and through–

EXCEPT IN THIS ONE “TEACHING” (HV)

It is maddening. For those who like to think things through this is a little bump of nonsensical ramblings; like a nasty knot in a beautiful tapestry. Like Palamite said, you are not going to get anywhere with the “It’s true because it is argument” with these folks, but keep saying it if it makes you feel better.

For what it’s worth, I’m not saying that because it doesn’t make sense it’s ok to be disobedient to Church teaching, because I’m not. I’m just saying that because it doesn’t make sense it will, one day, have to be fixed.

 

[LittleDeb]

magdelaine:

You totally disregard what Palamite said, but then I guess that doesn’t surprise. Yes, for many no argument will convince. But we are talking about devout Catholics that love the Church, love our Lord Jesus Christ, and love to learn about her philosophy, history, and teachings (ahem…people like me). One of the great attractions of the Church for many is how splendidly coherent and scriptural it is; the logic of the true Church shines through and through–

EXCEPT IN THIS ONE “TEACHING” (HV)

It is maddening. For those who like to think things through this is a little bump of nonsensical ramblings; like a nasty knot in a beautiful tapestry. Like Palamite said, you are not going to get anywhere with the “It’s true because it is argument” with these folks, but keep saying it if it makes you feel better.

For what it’s worth, I’m not saying that because it doesn’t make sense it’s ok to be disobedient to Church teaching, because I’m not. I’m just saying that because it doesn’t make sense it will, one day, have to be fixed.

See THIS is what I have been saying. THIS is a debate worth having! I have the world of respect for those who disagree and yet are still obedient to Church teaching.

I would agree that HV can be viewed as nonsensical ramblings. Humanae Vitae was in response to the advent of the Pill. HV does then have some “knee-jerk reaction” type of speech in it. During the time period contraception issues were being handled on a pastoral level rather than an infallible level. Priests were free to hold private counsel on what they told individual couples. My generation, very small that it is, is the result of HV. My brother’s birthday is mid July of 1968. Boy can my mom remember where she was when HV came out!

The most important factors that I take from HV are about intent and means. It basically says that contraception, in any form is an intrinsically disordered means. It also says to intend to be contraceptive is a mortal sin. Lastly it says that charting for infertile phases is not contraception. HV did not have a whole lot of convining arguments as to WHY any of this was true. Hence the present problem of, “it’s wrong because I said so.” It wasn’t convincing when our parents said it and it is no more convincing when The Church says it.

So is it true or not? I go back to the document in the 1930s, “On Christian Marriage.” This document was written as Christianity made another major divisive split. The Protestants caved to contraception and the Catholics didn’t. Why? That was the question I asked myself. Was the Church being stubborn to prove herself right or was she really right? Was there really a difference to the act of Christian marriage?

That is where the proof is. The proof is in the act, not in the intent. I can intend to be a good driver. That intent means nothing if I am driving a faulty car with no brakes. Tying pillows to the outside of my car is just going to make the person I hit, bounce higher. The pillows might lessen the injuries but it doesn’t change the fact.

Is contraception, as a means, intrinsically evil? If your answer is no then what would it take to convince you that it is? I asked the inverse of this exact question and I got a flood of information. Only one of the answers was, “Because The Church says so.”