Theology, Faith, and Contra-contraception

[GaryScott]

JimG:

In actuality, for Europe at present and perhaps soon for America, the problem is underpopulation.

The First world.

What about the Third World? That’s more what I had in mind.

 

[hlgomez]

Gary,

It is a matter of purpose that will give explanations to your questions.

Contraception is, for me, “playing God.” It’s contrary to sound reason and well-formed conscience.

Pio

 

[javelin]

Gary,

Just a few thoughts:

GaryScott:

Based on what I’ve read here, then, I would have to agree with AlanFromWichita – it’s a question of accepting the Church’s authority, for it doesn’t seem to be Biblically or logically provable.

It is important to accept Church authority, but this issue does not need to be followed blindly. It is very worth noting that there is no Biblical basis for arguing that ABC is good, or that God does not have certain designs for our sexual behavior and relationships. Everywhere where the Bible mentions something that can be understood as a type of artificial birth control, it is condemned. So, even if you are not convinced that the Bible explicity teaches against ABC, you should certainly be able to see that it does not contradict what the Church teaches – that using ABC is immoral.

It is also important to say that the Church doesn’t ever just invent teachings like this, based on some hard evidence and logical proof they construct. Rather, God designed it to work in the other direction. First, the Church knows because of Divine Revelation to the Apostles and through Jesus, certain Truths about God. Then, the Church builds theology around those Truths in order to be able to understand them more completely and help people apply them in their lives. In this case, Christians universally believed that ABC methods were evil for 1900 years after Christ. What the Church tries to do in its theology of morals is explain WHY it is true. Far different from building a proof to explain IF something is true.

Rather than “false until prooven to be true”, our attitude should really be “true unless it is proven false”.

GaryScott:

There’s a lot of truth to that in the twenty-first century, but the original prohibition on birth control is easily understood in an ancient context.

(…much about ABC for population control…)

Others have commented already on the population control argument, but that is really a side issue. What matters is the morality of the act itself. If using ABC were immoral, it could not be considered a viable tool for population control, just as mass murder cannot. The same holds true for abortion, if population concerns was your litmus test for the morality of an action. Mass murder actually has more potential for successful population control, yet it is clearly immoral and thus not an option. Christians in general never taught that ABC use was immoral because there weren’t enough people on the planet, so population control really isn’t a viable argument towards the morality of ABC use.

GaryScott:

So how are we to understand the Church’s position now? Simple — a question of face. Admitting it’s wrong this late in the game would result in a major loss of face. And so proof-texts about spelling one’s seed are trotted out against the hard evidence of demographics, and for the faithful, faith once again conquers scientific knowledge.

I’m very sorry you feel that way about the Church’s teaching. It is not about saving face. The Church very clearly believes that certain Truths were revealed to man by God, and so NO MAN, not even the Pope himself, has the power to change them. The Church doesn’t make the rules (not ones like this, at least), it only transmits them from God to the faithful.

Also, as I stated earlier, the Church’s position is not solely based on Biblical proof. But there certainly is no Biblical proof that ABC use is good and holy.

What hard, demographic data are you referring to? If you simply mean population control, well, that has been addressed. If you mean something else, let me know.

(continued in next post…)

 

[javelin]

GaryScott:

What the church needs is a reasonable position on “artificial” birth control. It’s fine and well to say that a relationship should be open to the potential of a new life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that ever sex act as to be open to said possibility.

What is a reasonable position, in your opinion? “Be open to life when it suits you”? Can you prove your position from the Bible, or logically?

What I believe the Church teaches, is that our sexuality is a sacramental gift (as has been well stated by several here) that must always respect its complete function. If someone chooses to engage in the sexual act, and simultaneously takes direct action to prevent a life that may naturally occur (by using chemical ABC, condoms, withdrawal, etc.), the person is choosing and acting directly against a potential life. Acting against life in this way is immorral, which makes the use of ABC “intrinsically evil”. It is NOT that every sexual union needs to result in conception because a healthy human body does not naturally function that way. It is also NOT that every sexual act needs to INTEND conception. It is simply that it is immoral to choose and act against life while engaging in the act that creates life.

This is the only teaching that remains consistent with all other basic Christian tenets of sexual morality, such as the immorality of homosexual relations, masturbation, and fornication.

GaryScott:

If it’s a question of the life-giving potential of sex, why is nothing said about all the potentialities which have become actualities, namely unwanted children? Why not encourage adopting children as an option? It seems awfully one-sided for the Church to be lambasting women who chose to have an abortion out of one side of its mouth and not even given lip service to the needs of already-born, clearly-unwanted children.

The Church definitely holds adoption in high regard. Also realize that the truly unwanted children arise out of mankind’s sinful disposition towards sexuality. The idea that “I have the right to have sex and not have children” inevitably leads to unwanted children when methods of birth control fail. I believe that only 0.0000000001% of “unwanted” children given up for adoption or truly unloved come from couples who truly follow the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. For all others, while the Church has the utmost compassion for those children, the Church certainly can’t be held responsible for the sad effects of the sinful sexual immorality She is trying to fight.

We must always remember, however, that ALL children are loved by God and He desires them to be saved. The Church does much more than “just lip service” for orphaned children throughout the world.

GaryScott:

As far as the argument I heard that it’s a questioning of God’s will in your life, that was indeed how I heard it explained here in Poland in the pre-wedding family planning session. It’s how it’s been explained to other Poles, from what I’ve heard from couples who’ve been through the same session. So apparently, the Polish Catholic Church is, at least somewhat restrictedly, teaching this non-Catholic doctrine as a justification of birth control.

I have to admit that the Church has done a poor job in chatechesis, and that inevitably leads to mass confusion and dissent. It does not, however, mean that the real doctrine is false. We must work harder are reforming what we can so that all know the Truth and can live in God’s grace and peace.

Peace,
javelin

 

[JimG]

GaryScott:

The First world.

What about the Third World? That’s more what I had in mind.

I think that problems in the Third World have less to do with overpopulation than with political corruption and maldistribution of resources. In the end, it may be the current third world countries that bail out the depopulation problems of the first world countries.

 

[GaryScott]

Thanks to all the imput on this subject. I never thought I’d admit it, but I’m finding myself more sympathetic to the Church’s position than I expected I’d be. Javelin’s comments were especially helpful.