The Case Against Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter sw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nate13 said:
Are you comparing fertility to obesity? I think there in lies your problem. Being fertile is a normal healthy condition. Being obese is not.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the natural law and its application to gastric bypass surgery.
 
louis91766 said:
What about gastric bypass surgery that allows you to eat, but then dumps the food into the bowel tract. Would that then be a mortal sin since you are eating but contrary to using the food for your survival, it is thrown out with other waste from your stomach.
Suppose that this were recommended by a doctor, would you still go to hell if you underwent the surgery?
Click to expand...
Not a reasonable comparison. Eating is not a Sacramental or even a sacred act. Marriage is, marital sex is. Contraception is a sin primarily because it offends against the Sacrament of marriage not because it is unnatural.
 
louis91766
What about gastric bypass surgery that allows you to eat, but then dumps the food into the bowel tract. Would that then be a mortal sin since you are eating but contrary to using the food for your survival, it is thrown out with other waste from your stomach.
Suppose that this were recommended by a doctor, would you still go to hell if you underwent the surgery?
Click to expand...
As Fr Stephen Torraco lucidly explains re assisting nature in healing:
**Assisting nature for mankind
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 10 2007: **
“The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called ‘gay marriage,’ and contraception.”
 
Corki said:
Asking for God’s blessing doesn’t make it sacred, let alone Sacramental.😉
Click to expand...
Who said so? Of course eating at meals is a holy and sacred occasion.
Prayer before meals:
Bless us Oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive, from thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.
Prayer after meals:
We give thanks for all your gifts, almighty God, who lives and reigns forever. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

I don;t deny that sex between husband and wife is holy, but why would it be significantly more so than eating? If sex between couples is significantly more sacred, then what is the common prayer which is said before and after? Notice, that there is are well-known prayers, which are known by all educated Catholics to be said before and after eating.
 
louis91766 said:
Who said so? Don’t you say your prayers before and after every meal? It most certainly is a very sacred act.
Click to expand...
Louis91766,

I think you will benefit greatly from reading the following:
sw85 said:
In response to the abundance of pro-contraception threads that keep popping up here, I offer a defense of the Church’s teachings on contraception, and an explanation of how that teaching is utterly inextricable from the rest of its teachings regarding sexual morality – and indeed, from morality in general.

===
  1. Everything in nature can be said to have a “form” or “essence” which it “instantiates” or “participates in.” To borrow an example from Edward Feser, a triangle can be said to be a closed-plane figure consisting of three straight lines; this is the essence of triangularity which all triangles approximate to varying degrees.
  2. Because not all instances of a thing instantiate its essence equally well, there necessarily exist gradations of goodness in nature. For instance, a triangle painstakingly drawn with a ruler on a flat surface is more likely to approximate the essence of triangularity than one scrawled with crayon on the plastic seatback of a moving bus. We can meaningfully say that the former is a “better” triangle than the latter; this is not an arbitrary and subjective preference but the product of a rational and objective evaluation of the facts.
  3. Distinctly related to the idea of essence is the idea of telos, the end which a thing serves. Many things in nature naturally act toward an end; pens are meant for writing, chairs for sitting, eyeballs for seeing, etc. Because of this we can meaningfully talk about “birth defects,” a judgment that would be meaningless if there were not norms arising from nature from which certain features of a person may deviate. Here, to, value judgments come into play; the “goodness” of a thing can be said to represent the extent to which it acts according to its end, so that a good pen is one that writes well (since writing is the pen’s telos) and a good chair is one that supports your weight when you sit on it (since sitting is the chair’s telos).
  4. These principles, applied to human behavior, furnish a basis for moral judgments.
  5. For instance, the various faculties which a person has are possessed of varying telos’. If the goodness of a thing consists in the degree to which it instantiates its essence, and if essence necessarily informs telos, then goodness necessarily means using one’s faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, and sin or disorder in using them in some contrary manner. For instance, our communicative faculty exists for the purpose of expressing what’s on our minds and communicating perceived truths; therefore it is good for us, when we speak, to do so in a manner consistent with the end of speech, and bad for us to do so in some contrary manner (e.g., by lying).
  6. The human sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation; we know this because of the distinct sexual configuration of men and women and because conception occurs in principle as a result of sex (in other words, the essence of the sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation). Therefore, goodness consists in using this faculty in a manner consistent with its end (i.e., intravaginal ejaculation) and sin/disorder in using it in a manner contrary to that end.
  7. Because procreation results in pregnancy, and because pregnant women are generally vulnerable and in need of care and support, and because newborn children are likewise in need of care, support, and proper instruction during the formative years of their lives, the sexual act entails a degree of continuing commitment (and therefore also a unitive aspect to sex) that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
  8. This principle pays no regard to the outcome of the act: it is merely considered with the proper use or ordering of our faculties. Thus chronically infertile couples can marry, provided they can complete the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end; but same-sex couples may not, because they cannot. Likewise, it remains licit to have sex during (even exclusively during) natural periods of infertility, provided the sex act is completed in a manner consistent with its end.
  9. Contraception is naturally contrary to the end of procreation, hence why it is called contraception; therefore, it is illicit. So is any sexual act which is, on principle, incapable of procreation, including masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. Polygamy violates this principle because it violates the commitment which the sexual act naturally demands of couples.
===

Pretty straightforward, I think. If the Church is in error in its teaching, it should be a relatively simple task for dissenters to point out the flaw in the reasoning here – and to explain how that flaw does not likewise invalidate all the rest of the Church’s moral teachings.
Click to expand...
 
alfred14 said:
i dont understand this part of yalls faith, im lutheran. the churches teaching are from the Pope, if i am correct in saying this then it is all subject to error, the pope is mearly human and even the best of us humans have really screwed up so how can you believe every thing the Church tells you?
Click to expand...
And Luther was a heretic, so why do you believe him and call yourself Lutheran?
 
louis91766 said:
Who said so? Of course eating at meals is a holy and sacred occasion.
Prayer before meals:
Bless us Oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive, from thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.
Prayer after meals:
We give thanks for all your gifts, almighty God, who lives and reigns forever. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

I don;t deny that sex between husband and wife is holy, but why would it be significantly more so than eating? If sex between couples is significantly more sacred, then what is the common prayer which is said before and after? Notice, that there is are well-known prayers, which are known by all educated Catholics to be said before and after eating.
Click to expand...
Review the 7 Sacraments. Matrimony is on the list. Dinner is not.
 
Debora123 said:
Wow, that was very offensive and uncharitable. 😦
Click to expand...
I don’t think its any secret that the Church believes Luther is a heretic… Possibly not the best tactics in order to have a discussion, but it is true. When in doubt be honest as the poster that he was responding to was being 🙂
 
Nate13 said:
I don’t think its any secret that the Church believes Luther is a heretic… Possibly not the best tactics in order to have a discussion, but it is true. When in doubt be honest as the poster that he was responding to was being 🙂
Click to expand...
Either way, there is a time and place when people need to keep their thoughts to themselves. Telling a Lutheran that the founder of his religion is a heretic and saying that he’s therefore following a heretic is extremely inappropriate for this forum.

Not to mention bad mouthing/insulting others’ religions is against forum rules.
 
EternalJade said:
Ok last post. 🙂 I don’t know about you Good Daughter, but my husband and I are not just one flesh during sex. Spiritually we became one when we got married. We are an inseparable pair. We see the world the same using the binocular vision that only people as close as a married couple can have. It would be really, really sad if people only became one during sex because not all married couples can have sex.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, there are more dimensions to the ‘one flesh’ union than just the physical. Your marriage is obviously a beautiful example of that!

That doesn’t address my confusion on how the marital act can be physically unitive with the introduction of barrier contraception. My question remains unanswered: How can a couple physically become ‘one flesh’ (as per God’s will in Genesis 2:24, reiterated in Matt 19:5 and Eph 5:31) while introducing a barrier to their embrace whose purpose is to physically separate their flesh?

sw85:
What would you say is contraception’s telos? I’m guessing it has to do with separation, maybe of male and female generative elements? I’d love to know what you think.
 
Debora123 said:
Either way, there is a time and place when people need to keep their thoughts to themselves. Telling a Lutheran that the founder of his religion is a heretic and saying that he’s therefore following a heretic is extremely inappropriate for this forum.

Not to mention bad mouthing/insulting others’ religions is against forum rules.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m going to agree here. Luther is a heretic, but pointing that out to a Lutheran that way is bad form, especially if your goal is to encourage dialog that may lead the Lutheran to conversion. The way that statement was made was not in a way to encourage dialog but probably left the Lutheran member angry enough to just not listen to any further dialog. We Catholics have the burden of presenting Truth in as charitable a way as possible…which is not that easy, but I do think this particular instance was an extreme of the opposite (Truth, but not charitably presented).

Just to keep the topic going…
Good_Daughter said:
I agree with you, there are more dimensions to the ‘one flesh’ union than just the physical. Your marriage is obviously a beautiful example of that!

That doesn’t address my confusion on how the marital act can be physically unitive with the introduction of barrier contraception. My question remains unanswered: How can a couple physically become ‘one flesh’ (as per God’s will in Genesis 2:24, reiterated in Matt 19:5 and Eph 5:31) while introducing a barrier to their embrace whose purpose is to physically separate their flesh?

sw85:
What would you say is contraception’s telos? I’m guessing it has to do with separation, maybe of male and female generative elements? I’d love to know what you think.
Click to expand...
 
Good_Daughter said:
I agree with you, there are more dimensions to the ‘one flesh’ union than just the physical. Your marriage is obviously a beautiful example of that!

That doesn’t address my confusion on how the marital act can be physically unitive with the introduction of barrier contraception. My question remains unanswered: How can a couple physically become ‘one flesh’ (as per God’s will in Genesis 2:24, reiterated in Matt 19:5 and Eph 5:31) while introducing a barrier to their embrace whose purpose is to physically separate their flesh?

sw85:
What would you say is contraception’s telos? I’m guessing it has to do with separation, maybe of male and female generative elements? I’d love to know what you think.
Click to expand...
Good daughter, I did answer your question with my viewpoint. I don’t take those verses as literally or technically as you do. The marital embrace is “unitive” physically because it is a bodily activity and even more importantly unity is a state of mind or a bond between a couple. For example two people who don’t want to be having sex together would not be having unifying sex, even with no contraceptives. This is why rape isn’t unifying. I have a different outlook on " one flesh" and “physically unitive” than you do. I believe one flesh is spiritual and emotional, and the act itself is bodily. Not down to the technicalities of the act.
 
ahs said:
Yeah, I’m going to agree here. Luther is a heretic,
Click to expand...
Luther did not create his own religion. Luther would role over in his grave if he new that men created a branch or catholism in his name. Luther was mad at the catholic church because
  1. It made people pay for indulginces, or what ever they are called, to let there family and friends out of Purgatory faster. This is the main reason we Lutherans dont teach purgatory.
  2. he disagreed with the churches teachings that good works will get you to heaven. at the time the catholic church taught that you had to do good things to get into heaven, and that you had to be physically beaten for your sins so that you were forgiven.
  3. he disagreed with the fact that church was only given in latin, a language the commoners did not know. and the bible was also only written in that language.
  4. He disagreed with the above because the Church used this to make the people do what ever they wanted them to.
there are exactly 95 things that he thought the church was wrong on. can you say that he was wrong with the 4 i have listed? I dont think any catholic could say the the 4 things listed above are good. Luther simply wanted the Catholic church to fix itself. At the time it was quite corrupt. this proves my point that even the popes are mere humans, and subject to error and corruption, as we all are.

If there is anything wrong with the 4 things llisted above i would like to hear them. simply because i was born and raised under his teachings, and would like to hear what someone thinks from “the outside”
 
alfred14 said:
If there is anything wrong with the 4 things llisted above i would like to hear them. simply because i was born and raised under his teachings, and would like to hear what someone thinks from “the outside”
Click to expand...
Can we defer all this to another thread? Too far off-topic.
 
SteveGC said:
Can we defer all this to another thread? Too far off-topic.
Click to expand...
sorry but it was previously brought in by atleast 2 others and was directed at me so i refused to leave something like that up without making sure that anyone else reading this thread would see how, they are right the catholic church calls Luther a heritic but also see why he was called a heritic.
 
alfred14
Luther did not create his own religion… Luther was mad at the catholic church because
  1. It made people pay for indulginces, or what ever they are called, to let there family and friends out of Purgatory faster. This is the main reason we Lutherans dont teach purgatory.
Click to expand...
Luther certainly tried to make his own “church”. Trying to found one’s own church is obviously not the answer! Look at the chaos today – especially in view of the havoc being wrought on Biblical interpretation by Luther and his revolt.

The Catholic Church did not “make people pay for indulgences.” Some abused the matter of Indulgences and the Council of Trent condemned the abuse and created rules to avoid the abuses.

Don’t you know that he rejected books from the Bible, with which he disagreed? That’s why Lutherans don’t know the teaching that “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.” (2 Macc 12:46).

But this is off the topic.
 
alfred14 said:
Luther did not create his own religion. Luther would role over in his grave if he new that men created a branch or catholism in his name. Luther was mad at the catholic church because
  1. It made people pay for indulginces, or what ever they are called, to let there family and friends out of Purgatory faster. This is the main reason we Lutherans dont teach purgatory.
  2. he disagreed with the churches teachings that good works will get you to heaven. at the time the catholic church taught that you had to do good things to get into heaven, and that you had to be physically beaten for your sins so that you were forgiven.
  3. he disagreed with the fact that church was only given in latin, a language the commoners did not know. and the bible was also only written in that language.
  4. He disagreed with the above because the Church used this to make the people do what ever they wanted them to.
there are exactly 95 things that he thought the church was wrong on. can you say that he was wrong with the 4 i have listed? I dont think any catholic could say the the 4 things listed above are good. Luther simply wanted the Catholic church to fix itself. At the time it was quite corrupt. this proves my point that even the popes are mere humans, and subject to error and corruption, as we all are.

If there is anything wrong with the 4 things llisted above i would like to hear them. simply because i was born and raised under his teachings, and would like to hear what someone thinks from “the outside”
Click to expand...
With reference to whether or not there is a Purgatory. Suppose that someone dies and has not repented of his lessor sins. Would that person go to heaven or to hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top