The sin of birth control

[billcu1]

My understanding of the sin of birth control, and I’ve never used any such thing of the male version. But anyway is that it’s contrary to the purpose of sex. Is that right and is that the same with everything? Don’t do something contrary to its’ purpose?

 

[Tomdstone]

My understanding of the sin of birth control, and I’ve never used any such thing of the male version. But anyway is that it’s contrary to the purpose of sex. Is that right and is that the same with everything? Don’t do something contrary to its’ purpose?

This is a question. Is it OK to go against nature and to go against the purpose of nature? Presumably it is not OK, since that is an argument against the morality of artificial birth control. But facial hair provides tactile sensory (name removed by moderator)ut by transferring hair movement and vibration to follicular nerves, thereby naturally extending the sense of touch. But it is morally OK to cut your facial hair even though you would be going against the natural purpose of facial hair.

 

[Strydersroom]

My understanding of the sin of birth control, and I’ve never used any such thing of the male version. But anyway is that it’s contrary to the purpose of sex. Is that right and is that the same with everything? Don’t do something contrary to its’ purpose?

My understanding is that over 80% of practicing Catholics do indeed use birth control and do not think it is a sin in any shape or form, but is in actuality their own version of NFP.

 

[jaimeleglise]

Yes, it is contrary to God’s plan.

 

[carefullytread]

My understanding of the sin of birth control, and I’ve never used any such thing of the male version. But anyway is that it’s contrary to the purpose of sex. Is that right and is that the same with everything? Don’t do something contrary to its’ purpose?

So, let me start by saying that I don’t much like the concept of natural law. First, I think that just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean that the way it is reflects a divine purpose that must be respected. And second, I don’t think you can really hope to look at nature and discern the purpose so much as see your biases reflected back at you. Why isn’t disease part of the natural law? Why isn’t flooding? Why is it primarily sex that the natural law tells us about and why can’t we see that even though marriage is common in most societies, so is promiscuity especially amongst high status males? Why isn’t that part of natural law?

A non-Catholic doesn’t have a good answer to those questions. But a Catholic has the reason why birth control is contrary to natural law, but vaccines are not. The Church tells them so. Just like the Bible can be read in many different ways, the natural law can be read in many different ways. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church in its infallible teachings on the True meanings of the natural law just as it protects the Church in its reading of Scripture.

How do you know that Protestants don’t get the letters of Paul right when they say salvation comes from faith alone? You could easily read them that way. Well, the Church is the infallible arbiter of Holy Scripture and it tells you what Paul really meant.

Likewise, how to do you know that shaving isn’t against the natural law? The Church tells you so. How to do you know that birth control is? The Church tells you so.

You don’t get to look at nature and decide what purposes are there. The Church does and its decisions are what are binding on Catholics.

As I said, I don’t buy any natural law arguments at all. I think it’s just seeing what you want to see - it’s subjectivity all the way down. But for a devout Catholic, there is no issue of subjectivity as you have an infallible interpreter of the law.

So don’t be scrupulous. Don’t worry that you need to find the purpose of everything and worry if you’re violating that purpose. The Church has done that for you, told you the rules you need to respect, and your obligation is to follow those teachings not to seek out the natural law directly.

 

[thistle]

My understanding of the sin of birth control, and I’ve never used any such thing of the male version. But anyway is that it’s contrary to the purpose of sex. Is that right and is that the same with everything? Don’t do something contrary to its’ purpose?

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

CCC 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[billcu1]

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

CCC 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

Some like the government clinics like to pass out condoms. Their idea of the woman is that she’s basically “a dog” and just can’t help herself. That’s insulting a woman. The idea of a condom I find insulting. Personally.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

My understanding is that over 80% of practicing Catholics do indeed use birth control and do not think it is a sin in any shape or form, but is in actuality their own version of NFP.

• Not really ‘practicing’ Catholics then, are they? *

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

My understanding is that over 80% of practicing Catholics do indeed use birth control and do not think it is a sin in any shape or form, but is in actuality their own version of NFP.

And they are wrong in both cases.

 

[Squidyman]

So, let me start by saying that I don’t much like the concept of natural law. First, I think that just because something is a certain way, doesn’t mean that the way it is reflects a divine purpose that must be respected. And second, I don’t think you can really hope to look at nature and discern the purpose so much as see your biases reflected back at you. Why isn’t disease part of the natural law? Why isn’t flooding? Why is it primarily sex that the natural law tells us about and why can’t we see that even though marriage is common in most societies, so is promiscuity especially amongst high status males? Why isn’t that part of natural law?

A non-Catholic doesn’t have a good answer to those questions. But a Catholic has the reason why birth control is contrary to natural law, but vaccines are not. The Church tells them so. Just like the Bible can be read in many different ways, the natural law can be read in many different ways. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church in its infallible teachings on the True meanings of the natural law just as it protects the Church in its reading of Scripture.

You don’t get to look at nature and decide what purposes are there. The Church does and its decisions are what are binding on Catholics.

As I said, I don’t buy any natural law argumentsse teachings not to seek out the natural law directly.

Interesting points you make. Definitely worth mulling them over.

 

[Lea101]

A lot of catholics use contraception because they believe that contraception is not a infallible teaching. Not sure if that’s true but yeah

It makes sense that it’s a sin when you go against the order of nature IMO when it comes to preventing or taking a life

 

[Sarcelle]

A lot of catholics use contraception because they believe that contraception is not a infallible teaching. Not sure if that’s true but yeah

It makes sense that it’s a sin when you go against the order of nature IMO when it comes to preventing or taking a life

A lot of Catholics use artificial birth control because they believe that continent single men, aka priests and bishops, do not have to worry about unexpected pregnancies and mouths to feed and so have no business telling the laity how to run their lives.