The Case Against Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debora123 said:
“Open to life” as in the actually LITERAL meaning of the phrase “open to life?”

YES.

…Because there is a higher possibility of life being brought into the world when a couple uses condoms as opposed to NFP.

However, there is apparently an alternate meaning to the phrase “open to life” that I have yet to fully comprehend. And according to THAT meaning, the answer would somehow be “NO.”

🤷
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church, and the Faith of which you claim your union (Roman Catholic) teaches these things regarding NFP being open to life (because it is ordered per se to procreation) and regarding the pill and condoms NOT being open to life.

You have stated before that you don’t underatand the Church’s teaching on centraception and believe it to be based on human error. That does not, however, give you the freedom to publically belittle something as serious as contracepting the procreative aspect of the marital act.

The Church is not only clear on the gravity of the nature of contraception, but equally clear on the gravity of dissenting from this teaching.

Your comment that somehow the pill or a condom is “open to life” to any degree, especially in light of the fact that you yourself have siad that you have studied the Church’s teaching in depth, is a scandalous comment. You have effectively provided an example, to people ignorant of the teaching, of something gravely contrary to the actual teaching. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2284-2287.)
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
If you come to my house while I’m having a dinner party, I look out the window and lock the door, and not open the door when you knock am I “open” to your visit?

Say you find the spare key and let yourself in, would you feel welcomed? If I do all that to not let you in, I’m going to be absolutely welcoming and not the slightest annoyed?

That is sex with a condom—or any contraception.
Click to expand...
I know you are only trying to help, but these analogies drive me crazy. Anyone can basically use any analogy to justify anything.
 
I fully understand why some argue that ABC and NFP are two sides of the same coin, and that both serve to affect the end of avoiding conception.

Heck, I struggled with the rationale myself since I became Catholic 4 years ago. I used to argue that NFP is no more moral than ABC, and ABC no more immoral than NFP, especially in the scenario where a husband and wife are fully committed to building a family, and are simply attempting to space children prudently.

I’ll sidestep the argument about whether or not NFP is more effective than ABC, because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The Church teaches, of course, that sex is to be both procreative and unitive. Most people have no problem understanding the unitive aspect. It is the basis of why premarital sex is immoral. The bigger problem has been in understanding the procreative aspect, even within the realm of sex among validly married couples. For a variety of reasons, the Church has decreed that it is morally permissible for a couple to abstain from sex during fertile periods, and likewise engage in sex only during infertile periods. It is morally permissible, however, only within the context of prudent and prayerful deliberation of the grave reasons that may or may not exist for them to do so. If no grave reasons exist, it is not morally permissible for them to purposefully do this.

The argument from pro-ABCers is that there is no difference between “engaging in sex only during naturally infertile periods” and “engaging in sex using artificial means to deliberately block conception if the sex act happens to fall within a fertile period”. Both seek to contracept, they say. On the surface, this appears correct, and would likely draw one into conflict with the Church, especially in cases where a couple using ABC would only be using it to space children and/or avoid pregnancy for grave reasons. But there are a couple things left beneath the surface.

First, the modern ABC culture is centered around selfishness and pride. It’s underlying principle is “you determine the size of your family based on your desires”, or more likely …“you can have the pleasure of sex without the inconvenience of pregnancy”. Hence, this culture is anti-God. And this is one reason why the Church teaches against it.

But even if the ABC culture mimicked the Christian culture of cooperation with grace and the divine law to prudently build a family, the means ABC utilizes are unnatural, human engineered, and are intended to give God no say in the matter. Following natural fertility cycles however, is a natural means, is God-engineered insofar as it harmonizes with how God created the body, and acknowledges God’s prudence in whether or not conception will or will not occur. This is the fundamental difference between the two.

Another way to look at it.

Having sex outside of marriage: Unconditionally Immoral
Sex within valid marriage: Conditionally Moral
Sex for unitive reasons only, due to non-grave reasons: Immoral
Sex for unitive reasons only, due to grave reasons: Moral
NFP: Morally neutral, depending on the gravity of reasons
ABC: Unconditionally Immoral
 
Debora123 said:
This is some weird, twisted logic. :confused:

Bottom line is, using NFP to avoid is more effective in preventing pregnancy than using a condom to avoid. That is why NFP promoters boast about NFP being more effective then condoms.

For the sake of argument however, I will say that my husband and I have unprotected sex during my infertile time, and sex with a condom during my fertile time. Again, using the literal definition of “open to life,” this is in fact more “open to life” than ONLY having sex during the infertile time.
Click to expand...
haha I love how things become weird and twisted when they make sense :rolleyes:

Your supposedly more open to life because you take an act that should have a 25% chance or higher of making you conceive if you are in good health and you reduce this chance to a 0.1% chance. Using your logic on what open to life means assuming we are talking about it in a broad way, a couple who has sex 1 a week is much less open to life then a couple who has sex 7 times a week. And they are less open to life than a couple who has sex 50 times a week and so on and so on. According to your idea of “open to life” we have to have sex as many times as we can otherwise we are withholding something from God :rolleyes: Or we could see that being open to life refers to what happens in the act itself as well as a conscience look at why or why not we are avoiding the fertile period.
 
ahs said:
The Catholic Church, and the Faith of which you claim your union (Roman Catholic) teaches these things regarding NFP being open to life (because it is ordered per se to procreation) and regarding the pill and condoms NOT being open to life.
Click to expand...
I wish people would refrain from saying derogatory things to me like “in which you CLAIM your union.”

And I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed this multiple times before to the same people who continue to do it anyway.

I mean, seriously, what do you want me to do, leave the Church?? Make me feel shunned and unwelcome? Because that is exactly what you’re doing when you say things like this, and quite frankly I’m getting really sick of it.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
If you come to my house while I’m having a dinner party, I look out the window and lock the door, and not open the door when you knock am I “open” to your visit?

Say you find the spare key and let yourself in, would you feel welcomed? If I do all that to not let you in, I’m going to be absolutely welcoming and not the slightest annoyed?

That is sex with a condom—or any contraception.
Click to expand...
Adding, with NFP.

I am having a dinner party while Deborah is out of town, the door is open if Deborah shows up. She most likely won’t come but is she does, she will be welcomed.

In which scenario would you feel more welcome…having to break in? Or being welcomed when you come?

That is how we treat God when we contracept.
 
Debora123 said:
They are funny and tend to not be so over the top as analogies about dinner parties and couches that drive.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous analogies are what its all about 🙂 If you don’t like ridiculous I hope you haven’t read any of the Old Testament prophesies or the book of Revelation haha. Beast’s coming out of the see in the likeness of animals, dragons with lots of heads and horns, and harlots riding on the back of beasts.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Adding, with NFP.

I am having a dinner party while Deborah is out of town, the door is open if Deborah shows up. She most likely won’t come but is she does, she will be welcomed.

In which scenario would you feel more welcome…having to break in? Or being welcomed when you come?

That is how we treat God when we contracept.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all. (And I hate to say this to you specifically because you are very charitable and I can tell you really try very hard.)

Again, I don’t see how the “door” is open when you use NFP vs condoms, if NFP is supposedly more “shut off” from actually resulting in life than condoms are.
 
Debora123 said:
This makes no sense at all. (And I hate to say this to you specifically because you are very charitable and I can tell you really try very hard.)

Again, I don’t see how the “door” is open when you use NFP vs condoms, if NFP is supposedly more “shut off” from actually resulting in life than condoms are.
Click to expand...
Look at each act individually and not at a person’s married life as a whole and all the sex acts within a month. Its about every act being open to life.
 
Honestly people, I don’t know why I’m getting so much flack for saying this:
Debora123 said:
“Open to life” as in the actually LITERAL meaning of the phrase “open to life?”

YES.

…Because there is a higher possibility of life being brought into the world when a couple uses condoms as opposed to NFP.

However, there is apparently an alternate meaning to the phrase “open to life” that I have yet to fully comprehend. And according to THAT meaning, the answer would somehow be “NO.”

🤷
Click to expand...
Everything I said in my above quote is true. I basically was saying that it depends on what you mean by “open to life.” In the literal sense, it means one thing, in the Church sense it means another.

I answered YES for one definition, and NO for the other.

Nothing I said was incorrect.
 
Debora123 said:
I wish people would refrain from saying derogatory things to me like “in which you CLAIM your union.”

And I’m pretty sure I’ve addressed this multiple times before to the same people who continue to do it anyone.

I mean, seriously, what do you want me to do, leave the Church?? Make me feel shunned and unwelcome? Because that is exactly what you’re doing when you say things like this, and quite frankly I’m getting really sick of it.
Click to expand...
No we don’t want you to leave, we want you to stay.

So you don’t understand the logic of NFP. Fine.

I think though, as a mature married woman you should rethink you position, and God forbid you cannot reconcile your position then keep it to yourself and your confessor. 😦

Please think about it: when you say the Church is wrong, the Church makes no “logical sense” condoms and NFP are the same thing, you could very well cause someone looking for the truth here to fall into serious sin.

That happened to me when one religion teacher erred in teaching a more liberal abortion ethic. I thought there was room in the Church for dissent, and dissented on most of the 6th commandment.

I’m trying to be kind and charitable, but I think I’m failing. Sorry.😦
 
Debora123 said:
This makes no sense at all. (And I hate to say this to you specifically because you are very charitable and I can tell you really try very hard.)

Again, I don’t see how the “door” is open when you use NFP vs condoms, if NFP is supposedly more “shut off” from actually resulting in life than condoms are.
Click to expand...
The door is open. (Planned Parenthood would call it unprotected sex.)

I did nothing to keep you from coming to my dinner party…you were not around to attend. If you showed up nothing would be blocking you from coming to the party.

With the condom analogy. You could be right outside, but I still shut the door. You could have the key…but I shut the door
 
As far as I know, the term “open to life” is not an official Church term.

Nonetheless, it is not a term to be used retrospectively. That is where many people fail to understand it. One cannot say they are “open to life” based on outcome.

“Open to life” is a mentality prior to and during the sex act itself. Not after.

ABC says definitively “no…we’re not open to it, even if your will, Lord, was for us to conceive this time”.

NFP says “if it be your will, Lord…we will not deliberately block it from happening”. Hence, open to life.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
No we don’t want you to leave, we want you to stay.

So you don’t understand the logic of NFP. Fine.

I think though, as a mature married woman you should rethink you position, and God forbid you cannot reconcile your position then keep it to yourself and your confessor. 😦

Please think about it: when you say the Church is wrong, the Church makes no “logical sense” condoms and NFP are the same thing, you could very well cause someone looking for the truth here to fall into serious sin.

That happened to me when one religion teacher erred in teaching a more liberal abortion ethic. I thought there was room in the Church for dissent, and dissented on most of the 6th commandment.

I’m trying to be kind and charitable, but I think I’m failing. Sorry.😦
Click to expand...
Debora123, Ditto on the above. And I repsect your opinion and your right to it. But if I see a comment from a Catholic that is directly contrary to Catholic teaching, I would shirking my responsibility to ignore it. I didn’t mean to be derogatory in saying “to which you claim your union”. You are right, and I apologize.

That said, we, as Catholics, cannot post things like you did that are directly contrary to Church teaching that portray those contrary ideas in an acceptable light. If we do, we risk the potential to provide a false or misleading witness to those who are ignorant of the teaching or have a weak Faith. That becomes scandal (CCC 2284-2287).
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
The door is open. (Planned Parenthood would call it unprotected sex.)

I did nothing to keep you from coming to my dinner party…you were not around to attend. If you showed up nothing would be blocking you from coming to the party.

With the condom analogy. You could be right outside, but I still shut the door. You could have the key…but I shut the door
Click to expand...
Ok, how about this:

Going through great lengths to figure out exactly when I will not be around, and purposely scheduling parties ONLY when you KNOW I’ll be gone.

… This way, even if I HAD the key and could get in if I wanted to, I wouldn’t, because I wouldn’t be around to begin with.

…And you knew that and purposely planned it that way.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
No we don’t want you to leave, we want you to stay.

So you don’t understand the logic of NFP. Fine.

I think though, as a mature married woman you should rethink you position, and God forbid you cannot reconcile your position then keep it to yourself and your confessor. 😦

Please think about it: when you say the Church is wrong, the Church makes no “logical sense” condoms and NFP are the same thing, you could very well cause someone looking for the truth here to fall into serious sin.

That happened to me when one religion teacher erred in teaching a more liberal abortion ethic. I thought there was room in the Church for dissent, and dissented on most of the 6th commandment.

I’m trying to be kind and charitable, but I think I’m failing. Sorry.😦
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think that there is infinitely worse stuff being said here on CAF that would make many people want to turn around and run the other way.

There are enough threads out there written by scrupulous people claiming that practically EVERYTHING is a sin, to make plenty of visitors/newbies get the impression that Catholics are all a bunch of crazies.

And then of course, there will be people who are rude, uncharitable, self righteous and very judgmental (I’m not saying any of you here are) towards those who disagree with something or struggle with a particular issue.

Why not give this same message to THEM?

I think that to blame ME for causing other people to leave or fall into sin or whatever, is pretty uncalled for, to be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top