So...should artificial birth control be illegal too?

[Rence]

I think a woman who had a miscarriage of a 6 month fetus would disagree with you. Many women have their eggs fertilized and the egg doesn’t implant and it comes out of their bodies without them ever knowing fertilization occurred. Would you tell a woman who lost a 6 month fetus that her loss is no greater than that of a women who didn’t even know a ferilized egg was in ther period?
A condom does not have any hormones.

I see what you’re saying, but again, the CC teaches that from the moment a sperm and an egg join, a soul is added to that combination. I know it’s not an easy thing for a non-Catholic or non-Christian to accept, especially considering how many of those fertilized eggs end up miscarried before implantation, so one can wonder what happens to all those souls that were sent down from heaven and then lost due to natural causes before implantation. I don’t even think the Church has a teaching on what happens to those losses. IIRC, they believe that God, in his infinite Goodness and Wisdom, will take care of those lost souls. But to the CC, all those miscarriages are considered a death, and so for Catholics, preventing implantation results in the loss of a soul. And of course, the CC regards all abortions as the loss of a soul. While it’s “hokey” or “romanticised” for a non-Christian, and I’ve even heard “ridiculous”, it’s a big teaching from the CC. We can all agree that the joining of an egg and sperm results in the beginnings of a human life. But clearly, the teaching of a soul being involved from the moment an egg is joined by a sperm is a Church teaching. Thus ABCs and abortion are against the CC’s teaching, and something that practicing Catholics can’t stomach, and can’t stomach the thought of non-Catholics disagreeing with them. But I do understand their pain. Of course, I understand the perspective of the non-Catholic as well. But you asked about Church teaching, and there it is. Hopefully, you’ll understand why Catholics are so opposed to abortion and ABCs. I don’t think ABCs will ever be illegal, and for the simple fact that many women use them for medical reasons, I hope they never will be illegal. I really have no clue if abortion will be made to be illegal, but I’m thinking that the teaching of the CC that plan B isn’t allowed even in the cases of rape is going to prevent abortion from being made illegal again - despite the teachings of the Church on the matter, many more, and even Catholics, don’t agree with that teaching. But those are just my thoughts on the subject, who knows what the law will turn out to be in the future. I guess it depends on how well Christians and non-Christians lobby for what they want. IMOHO, and many others, outlawing abortion is going to cause more problems than not and comparing the US to places that are predominantly Catholic is not a useful correlation - for obvious reasons. So only time will tell what will happen and where this will eventually go.

But … those are your reasons for the Catholic Church’s teachings. I hope that makes you understand it better. You should probably read Humanae Vitae and other writings from the Vatican. It might help you understand the teachings better

 

[puzzleannie]

Why not just make it illegal to be anything but Catholic? I mean, if we want to push Catholic morals on people, why not just force them to be Catholic, right?

last time I checked "thou shalt not kill applies to the entire human race, not just to Catholics. Since all laws legislate morality–right relationship among people–to some extent don’t fly that bird, either.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

I think a woman who had a miscarriage of a 6 month fetus would disagree with you. Many women have their eggs fertilized and the egg doesn’t implant and it comes out of their bodies without them ever knowing fertilization occurred. Would you tell a woman who lost a 6 month fetus that her loss is no greater than that of a women who didn’t even know a ferilized egg was in ther period?

A condom does not have any hormones.

SugarMagnolia:

You have made a couple of excellent points. As women, many of us, without our knowledge, have probably expelled fertilized eggs that never implanted. Were we pregnant or not? I would guess not.

You are also correct about condoms. No hormones and no adverse effects. And since many on these forums insist that they are less reliable than NFP, perhaps those using condoms are actually more open to life than those who use NFP to avoid pregnancy. Also, condoms are much simpler than NFP…no temperature taking, no mucus testing, no charting… When you think about it, NFP really doesn’t sound very natural, does it?

 

[Rence]

SugarMagnolia:

You have made a couple of excellent points. As women, many of us, without our knowledge, have probably expelled fertilized eggs that never implanted. Were we pregnant or not? I would guess not.

You are also correct about condoms. No hormones and no adverse effects. And since many on these forums insist that they are less reliable than NFP, perhaps those using condoms are actually more open to life than those who use NFP to avoid pregnancy. Also, condoms are much simpler than NFP…no temperature taking, no mucus testing, no charting… When you think about it, NFP really doesn’t sound very natural, does it?

The main issue the CC has with condoms is because it is sinful to “waste the seed”, to “throw away the seed” is again, purely a Catholic teaching. I don’t really understand how sperm is the “source of life” since indeed it takes an egg and a sperm to result in conception, but that’s what She teaches. Also the CC teachings say that every time one has sex they must be open to life, which is another reason why the CC teaches against condoms. I can’t think of any other Church teachings regarding use of condoms, but there might be more. Others will chime in if there are, I’m sure.

Again, it’s unlikely condoms will be made against the law. Too many people don’t believe or don’t accept the Church’s teachings. And it is purely a Church teaching. And again, any perceived “good” coming from outlawing of condoms would not outweigh the bad that can result.

 

[Christopher68]

The main issue the CC has with condoms is because it is sinful to “waste the seed”, to “throw away the seed” is again, purely a Catholic teaching. I don’t really understand how sperm is the “source of life” since indeed it takes an egg and a sperm to result in conception, but that’s what She teaches. Also the CC teachings say that every time one has sex they must be open to life, which is another reason why the CC teaches against condoms. I can’t think of any other Church teachings regarding use of condoms, but there might be more. Others will chime in if there are, I’m sure.

Again, it’s unlikely condoms will be made against the law. Too many people don’t believe or don’t accept the Church’s teachings. And it is purely a Church teaching. And again, any perceived “good” coming from outlawing of condoms would not outweigh the bad that can result.

You say that it is ‘unlikely’ that condoms will be made against the law. From my vantage point, it is an ‘impossibility’ that condoms would be made against the law.

 

[Rence]

You say that it is ‘unlikely’ that condoms will be made against the law. From my vantage point, it is an ‘impossibility’ that condoms would be made against the law.

Ok fine, it’s probably impossible, but I try not to speak in absolutes But I agree with you. I just don’t see outlawing condoms in our near or even our distant future. People wanted them, people got them, go ahead and try to take away more freedoms and they’ll only fight you harder.

 

[kage_ar]

The main issue the CC has with condoms is because it is sinful to “waste the seed”, to “throw away the seed” is again, purely a Catholic teaching. .

Please post a link to an official document of the Church that teaches this.

 

[edwest2]

Please read what Pope Paul VI wrote:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

The main issue the CC has with condoms is because it is sinful to “waste the seed”, to “throw away the seed” is again, purely a Catholic teaching. I don’t really understand how sperm is the “source of life” since indeed it takes an egg and a sperm to result in conception, but that’s what She teaches. Also the CC teachings say that every time one has sex they must be open to life, which is another reason why the CC teaches against condoms. I can’t think of any other Church teachings regarding use of condoms, but there might be more. Others will chime in if there are, I’m sure.

.

This is not what the Church teaches at all.

 

[Rence]

Please post a link to an official document of the Church that teaches this.

Since your post implies you already know the answers, please post the reason why condoms are not permissible in the CC, rather than me hunting down the myriad of scriptures that claim that spilling seed is against the laws of nature. Thanks

 

[Rence]

This is not what the Church teaches at all.

Really? Wow, so then condoms are okay If not, please tell us why not.

 

[estesbob]

Really? Wow, so then condoms are okay If not, please tell us why not.

You need to read Humanae Vitae-you can find it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[kage_ar]

Since your post implies you already know the answers, please post the reason why condoms are not permissible in the CC, rather than me hunting down the myriad of scriptures that claim that spilling seed is against the laws of nature. Thanks

You made the claim about condoms being immoral because of “wasting seed”- you stated very resoundingly that that was a Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Rence]

You made the claim about condoms being immoral because of “wasting seed”- you stated very resoundingly that that was a Catholic teaching. The burden of proof is on you.

Genesis 38:8-10
. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

 

[estesbob]

Genesis 38:8-10
. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

And the point is???

 

[Contarini]

Well, both (if that’s possible). There is so much push to make abortion illegal (and to keep gay marriage illegal) based on Church teaching. I once agreed with it and am now questioning that approach. I just don’t see anyone calling for adultery or divorce or ABC to be illegal.

Abortion is in a different category because it is the killing of an innocent human being. Any decent society should make that illegal.

Gay marriage is a different issue. I have no problem with society giving legal status to same-sex relationships. In fact I think that giving some kind of legal recognition to committed relationships is in some cases a matter of justice. However, I think that it’s an abuse of language to call such unions “marriage.” It’s not a question of “keeping gay marriage illegal” (as if the government had authority over what marriage is) but of changing the definition of marriage altogether. The basic problem with this issue is that we have accepted the assumption that the government gets to decide what marriage is in the first place.

With regard to issues of sexual morality generally, I think we should bear in mind that medieval societies generally allowed for legalized prostitution, and that theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas advocated this policy on the grounds that not everything sinful needs to be illegal, and that the consequences of single men not having a sexual “outlet” would be bad for society. I take the opposite view to these esteemed theologians with regards to what kinds of sexual activity are worse for society–I think that free, consensual sexual relationships are less devastating both socially and morally than an institution that reduces women to commodities–but I think that the principle at work was a legitimate one.

But we must draw the line at the point where sexual freedom demands the lives of unborn children as a human sacrifice.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To the majority of Americans, abortion is a right and to a much greater number of americans, birth control is a right.

And to 19th-century Southerners, slavery was a right.

Edwin

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
Genesis 38:8-10
. 8 Juda, therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

And the point is???

The point is, Scripture says that spilling seed is a detestable thing. What else would the point be?

I’m not really sure why you’re so hostile about it. Really, it’s completely puzzling to me. If you think it’s not a correct teaching, I’d be VERY open to understand why you think it’s not a correct teaching. Because personally, I DON’T think sperm is the source of life. I mean, it’s right there in the Bible. It’s been said in my Church many times. But I think everyone and their brother knows it takes two to make a baby. So…why do you think it’s not a teaching? Please give me a reason to totally disregard this reading, because I would love to

 

[hellopeople]

And to 19th-century Southerners, slavery was a right.

Edwin

Jesus or Paul never spoke out about it. Actually Paul’s letter to Philemon was primarily about returning a slave to him.

EDIT: Obviously Paul and Jesus were for a very respectful slavery (different than the slavery of the deep south in the great majority of cases), but it is still worth noting.

 

[Contarini]

But you can’t force people to be Catholic and live by Catholic rules. I don’t think God wants people to be forced to believe in him. There is no merit in that. God wants people to freely come to him.

You have to distinguish between “forcing people to be Catholic” and “forcing people to live by Catholic rules.” They aren’t the same.

Indeed people can’t be forced to be Catholics, or to be Christians more broadly. This is true for exactly the reason you give.

But if the purpose of law is to promote the common good, and if Catholic “rules” promote the common good, then the question of whether people should be forced to live by “Catholic rules” deserves further consideration. Such laws do not force people to believe–they force them to behave morally, just as laws against murder and theft do. I do not think that laws forcing everyone to abide by Catholic moral teaching would violate basic human rights. However, apart from the fact that I’m more dubious about certain things (such as birth control) than Catholics are and see others as possibly less serious than conservative Catholics do (I’m not at all sure that fornication is a mortal sin, for instance, though it’s certainly at least a venial one), I think that trying to enforce all of Catholic morality would be “inconvenient” (to use a wonderful scholastic term). It would do more harm than good, and it would create an atmosphere of repression and suspicion that would be extremely unhealthy.

Edwin