Understanding the Truth in Regards to Contraception

[ahs]

Interesting comment two angels. Thank you.

Firstly, I must state that I totally agree with the Church’s teaching that using contraception is a sin. I find the reasoning in Humanae Vitae very sound.

However, it is the gravity of the sin that I speculate about. It would seem to me that contraception is likely to be more grave outside marriage where personal pleasure is the sole objective, or between a married couple with no kids and no health problems to prevent them using NFP. Does the gravity of the sin lessen when there is ignorance about NFP? Does it lessen between a married couple with a number of kids or where pregnancy can seriously harm the health of the woman or put her life at risk? I think such discernment is important because of the different ways the church treats mortal and venial sins.

I also used to think that abstinence would be the only option open to married couples who could not rely on NFP. I have seen very little pastoral guidance written about these situations.

Abstinence has to be by mutual consent. So what if one spouse, for whom pregnancy is dangerous, does not want to abstain? What is the duty of the other spouse? I have seen an apologist on this site give advice that it would be better to separate from your spouse than put at risk your eternal soul by using contraception. But is this a pastoral response? especially when the Church has teachings on how to deal with sin? What about the children if you separated? Wouldn’t you be contributing to your spouse committing adultery if she remarried? Again, the gravity of the sin is important. The Catechism teaches that the reception of the Eucharist forgives venial sins.

I read recently the following article about the importance of oxytocin and vasopressin in the study of monogamous animals:

christendom-awake.org/pages/mshivana/tobpaper.htm

This article suggests a deep biological importance inherent in sexual intercourse for monogamous species, including humans, which reinforces the teaching of the church about marriage but also stresses the importance of maintaining a sexual relationship within marriage.

One cannot justify an evil (in this case, contraception) as a means to avoid a negative-seeming outcome.

If one spouse refuses to abstain, provided that the other is okay with this and consents to engage in the act, that spouse must accept the fact that procreation is a natural end to the marital act and must complete the act as designed by God…unitive and procreative.

The Church has MANY pages of explanations, dating back to the beginnings of the Church, the Scriptures, and up to present day, that explain why contracepetion is a grave evil. Whether one believes it should only be a venial sin is irrelevant because God has revealed otherwise…and we are not masters of God.

In simplest terms, God made the rules, He reveals them to us via the Church that He established, and we are in no position to question Him.

 

[ahs]

One such example that I mentioned above:

1. …First consideration is due to the offspring, which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act… Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children.
2. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
3. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
4. …the Catholic Church…raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (Casti Connubii 53-56)

 

[Steven10]

One cannot justify an evil (in this case, contraception) as a means to avoid a negative-seeming outcome.

If one spouse refuses to abstain, provided that the other is okay with this and consents to engage in the act, that spouse must accept the fact that procreation is a natural end to the marital act and must complete the act as designed by God…unitive and procreative.

The Church has MANY pages of explanations, dating back to the beginnings of the Church, the Scriptures, and up to present day, that explain why contracepetion is a grave evil. Whether one believes it should only be a venial sin is irrelevant because God has revealed otherwise…and we are not masters of God.

In simplest terms, God made the rules, He reveals them to us via the Church that He established, and we are in no position to question Him.

You are infering, by saying that “God has revealed otherwise” what the Church does not proclaim, that using contraception is always a mortal sin. Not even Humanae Vitae says that. It says it is a grave matter, and then we rely on the Church formula to determine if the grave matter translates into a mortal sin by the circumstances that the person finds themselves in.

Even if I hypothetically admit that contraception in every single instance will result in a mortal sin, the Church has a sacrament called reconciliation which addresses mortal sins and a pastoral approach would make people aware of this.

Christ came to Earth to forgive sins. That’s the core of his teaching, to restore unity between God and humankind.

 

[Debora123]

The beginning of the teaching on birth control is right where you would expect it to start in the beginning of the bible in Genesis.

Genesis 2:23-24
New International Version (NIV)
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

reiterated in the New Testament

Mark 10:6-8
New International Version (NIV)
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,** 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Matthew 19:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[a]?

To the OP. This is the fundamental Scripture core of the teaching on birth control. Also add this:

Ephesians 5:22-30
New International Version (NIV)
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.** 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29** After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. **

If you want the simplest most down to Earth answer as to why contraception is wrong imagine the imagery above of how Christ treats his bride the Church. A husbands love for his wife and a wife’s love for her husband are supposed to use that as their guide. Christ and the Church are the standard.

Sex is the ultimate expression of love between spouses, correct?
What was Jesus’ ultimate expression of love for his Church? His suffering and crucifixion.

Now imagine Jesus adding the equivalent of a contraceptive act to his suffering and crucifixion. If you want to understand where Pope’s having been coming from, meditate on the verse from Ephesians and the verse from Genesis. Think of all the different meanings by which “one flesh” could be referring to.

I honestly don’t see any mention of anything even remotely close to birth control in almost all those passages.

But perhaps the OP will see different. This is his thread after all.

 

[ahs]

You are infering, by saying that “God has revealed otherwise” what the Church does not proclaim, that using contraception is always a mortal sin.

My apologies for not being more clear. It was error in using the words “venial sin”. I should have said, “…whether ones believes it should be grave matter or not…” Yes, contraception is grave matter, but not a grave sin unless the 3 conditions are met (knowledge, consent, grave matter).

What I was addressing by that particular comment was this:

However, it is the gravity of the sin that I speculate about. It would seem to me that contraception is likely to be more grave outside marriage where personal pleasure is the sole objective, or between a married couple with no kids and no health problems to prevent them using NFP.

It doesn’t matter what the circumstance is, contraception is a grave evil (grave matter) whether a couple has children or not, and regardless of any difficulties they face. If a couple were truly prevented from using NFP, the proper recourse is abstinence.

Does the gravity of the sin lessen when there is ignorance about NFP?

The gravity of the nature of the sin does not (it is still grave matter) but there is a matter of lessened culpability for those who, not by any fault of their own, are ignorant of the Church Teachings .

Does it lessen between a married couple with a number of kids or where pregnancy can seriously harm the health of the woman or put her life at risk? I think such discernment is important because of the different ways the church treats mortal and venial sins.

I’ll let a Pope answer this for you:

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii 54)

In instances where a woman’s life is at risk, the couple can discern periodic abstinence, making use if the infertile times (NFP), or total abstinence.

(More of this posted above and the Encyclical can be found online.)

 

[Steven10]

My apologies for not being more clear. It was error in using the words “venial sin”. I should have said, “…whether ones believes it should be grave matter or not…” Yes, contraception is grave matter, but not a grave sin unless the 3 conditions are met (knowledge, consent, grave matter).

What I was addressing by that particular comment was this:

It doesn’t matter what the circumstance is, contraception is a grave evil (grave matter) whether a couple has children or not, and regardless of any difficulties they face. If a couple were truly prevented from using NFP, the proper recourse is abstinence.

The gravity of the nature of the sin does not (it is still grave matter) but there is a matter of lessened culpability for those who, not by any fault of their own, are ignorant of the Church Teachings .

I’ll let a Pope answer this for you:

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii 54)

In instances where a woman’s life is at risk, the couple can discern periodic abstinence, making use if the infertile times (NFP), or total abstinence.

(More of this posted above and the Encyclical can be found online.)

I agree with the Pope in your quote when he says “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.” I am not saying that using contraception is ever morally good. The fact that I see it at best as a venial sin (and in most cases would probably be a mortal sin) would attest to this. Yes, I would also agree that it is shameful. I’m not sure what intrinsically viscious means.

I can just see that there are certain circumstances where married couples can get backed into a corner from which there is little to no escape, and most of us are not saints yet, though we strive to be. Equating “grave matter” with “mortal sin” as some apologists do when talking about contraception really locks the cell door on these people. Yet Jesus was the person to free people from these situations, like he freed the adulterous woman. For some people it is their cross to bear and they have to keep going back to Jesus asking for forgiveness and hoping that they never use it again. The question for me is whether you can ask for forgiveness during the Mass or whether it is in the confessional.

I don’t have a well formed position and wouldn’t be advising anyone about the issue. I’m just thinking about these things.

 

[Nate13]

I agree with the Pope in your quote when he says “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.” I am not saying that using contraception is ever morally good. The fact that I see it at best as a venial sin (and in most cases would probably be a mortal sin) would attest to this. Yes, I would also agree that it is shameful. I’m not sure what intrinsically viscious means.

I can just see that there are certain circumstances where married couples can get backed into a corner from which there is little to no escape, and most of us are not saints yet, though we strive to be. Equating “grave matter” with “mortal sin” as some apologists do when talking about contraception really locks the cell door on these people. Yet Jesus was the person to free people from these situations, like he freed the adulterous woman. For some people it is their cross to bear and they have to keep going back to Jesus asking for forgiveness and hoping that they never use it again. The question for me is whether you can ask for forgiveness during the Mass or whether it is in the confessional.

I don’t have a well formed position and wouldn’t be advising anyone about the issue. I’m just thinking about these things.

Are you asking if there is ever a situation where using contraception would not be considered a grave matter and thus not have the potential to be a mortal sin?

 

[Trakehner28]

The thing about this is, the Old law is completely gone after the New law was put into place. That means that this story with Onan is Old law, and is no longer in effect. That is the simple truth to it. Besides, there is no commandment in the Bible that says every act must be open. It does say in Corinthians that children are a blessing, and I’d agree. THat doesn’t mean that the low working wage I receive will support a child. There is simply no commandment for this, though it’d be great if someone were able to support a child and have every act open-but it can’t always happen.

 

[Trakehner28]

Another quick addition to my above comment…The Catholic church is majorly to benefit by more people, with all the schools, hospitals, etc. being supported by them. There is a dark side to the Catholic Church, you know. I believe everything else is accurate with them, but when it comes to money, the Church is known to be corrupt. Even Pope John Paul 2 would throw hissy-fits when there weren’t enough kids in the pews, meaning not enough extra money coming in. This was told by one of the people working directly under him. Money is getting in the way, here.

 

[Hokomai]

As I understand it, to accept the Church’s position on contraception you have to believe that 1) things are created by God for a purpose, which is called .natural law’. 2) sex, or the ‘organs of generation’ are created for both procreation and pleasure, and for a reason never fully explained, the two cannot be separated. 3) It is unnatural to intervene by the use of objects or drugs, but not by calculation, mucus measurement and planning, to reduce the chances of conception 4) It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP. 5) Having sex is a really important thing, and therefore this is ‘grave matter’. 6) breaching natural law over 'grave matter is mortally sinful 7) Therefore it is a mortal sin to use ‘artificial birth control’. 8) Therefore wherever the Church can achieve it, ‘artificial’ birth control should be prevented by law from being prescribed or distributed to that purpose to anyone, Catholic or not (as in Ireland until recently).

I don’t accept any of that, and in my experience very few Catholics find it compelling either. What the minority who support the teaching do is choose to accept the teaching. They are not convinced by the logic any more than I am. I respect the faith of Catholics who feel this way, but I do not accept the argument put forward.

 

[Spyral]

It is also interesting to note that couples who do not use contraception have a divorce rate of <1% to <2%, while otherwise marriages fail 40, 50, in some areas 70% of the time.

Correlation does not prove causation.

An explanation may be : people who don’t use contraception are more likely to be of a faith that prohibits divorce.

 

[sw85]

Since it’s against the rules to have more than one topic per thread, I was asked to start another to get answers to my questions. We left off in the other thread with my statement:

I also have to add that I have been lurking on these forums for many months, and must say that it has contributed directly to my shrinking faith. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school through 12th grade, but wanted to gain a better understanding, so I started looking here. It’s had the opposite effect.

So please, is there anybody that can kindly break this topic/teaching/truth down for me?

From an earlier thread I started several months ago. Please ask if you have any questions. This is basically a very reductive method of the formal moral theology the Church employs to address questions of moral import:

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.

1. 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.

1. 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).

1. These principles, applied to human behavior, furnish a basis for moral judgments.

1. 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).

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

 

[sw85]

My main beef with all of this starts with Onan, and (at least according to this article) that seems to be where the Church originally got its teaching on contraception.

No, the basis for the Church’s prohibition on contraception is philosophical, not (entirely) Scriptural. See my post above.

Also, no offense against the pope, but this whole paragraph:

…makes some pretty substantial assumptions. Having grown up post “sexual revolution” I can say that I was still able to decide between right and wrong with regards to my virginity despite the availability of contraception. For this I am grateful to my parents’ solid upbringing of their children. Secondly, just because a couple does not use contraception certainly does not make them any less susceptible to falling victim to selfish enjoyment.

Well, you may well be the exception. The widespread collapse of sexual morality in the years after the development of contraception, even among Catholic laity (where polls routinely show large majorities endorsing contraception, divorce, fornication, embryonic stem cell research, and homosexual activity, and a sizable plurality endorsing abortion), is simply a fact that has to be recognized.

You are infering, by saying that “God has revealed otherwise” what the Church does not proclaim, that using contraception is always a mortal sin. Not even Humanae Vitae says that. It says it is a grave matter, and then we rely on the Church formula to determine if the grave matter translates into a mortal sin by the circumstances that the person finds themselves in.

The Catechism seldom uses the word “sin” to describe any particular action. Sin is a gravely disordered act + full knowledge of its graveness + full consent. Thus whether or not X constitutes a mortal sin varies depending on the circumstances. Ignorance or incomplete consent mitigate culpability.

This does not give Catholics a free pass to contracept, though.

Even if I hypothetically admit that contraception in every single instance will result in a mortal sin, the Church has a sacrament called reconciliation which addresses mortal sins and a pastoral approach would make people aware of this.

Christ came to Earth to forgive sins. That’s the core of his teaching, to restore unity between God and humankind.

Yes, but you still have a moral duty to avoid sin. Confession is not an “easy out” – you must genuinely detest your sin and thus resolve to avoid it. If you keep your fingers crossed and plan on contracepting that evening while you’re in the confession booth, your penance as such is invalid and you remain guilty of mortal sin.

The thing about this is, the Old law is completely gone after the New law was put into place. That means that this story with Onan is Old law, and is no longer in effect. That is the simple truth to it. Besides, there is no commandment in the Bible that says every act must be open. It does say in Corinthians that children are a blessing, and I’d agree. THat doesn’t mean that the low working wage I receive will support a child. There is simply no commandment for this, though it’d be great if someone were able to support a child and have every act open-but it can’t always happen.

This is incorrect, but irrelevant anyway.

Incorrect: “I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it,” remember?

Irrelevant: the church’s teachings on contraception are not Scriptural but philosophical.

As I understand it, to accept the Church’s position on contraception you have to believe that 1) things are created by God for a purpose, which is called .natural law’. 2) sex, or the ‘organs of generation’ are created for both procreation and pleasure, and for a reason never fully explained, the two cannot be separated. 3) It is unnatural to intervene by the use of objects or drugs, but not by calculation, mucus measurement and planning, to reduce the chances of conception 4) It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP. 5) Having sex is a really important thing, and therefore this is ‘grave matter’. 6) breaching natural law over 'grave matter is mortally sinful 7) Therefore it is a mortal sin to use ‘artificial birth control’. 8) Therefore wherever the Church can achieve it, ‘artificial’ birth control should be prevented by law from being prescribed or distributed to that purpose to anyone, Catholic or not (as in Ireland until recently).

I don’t accept any of that, and in my experience very few Catholics find it compelling either. What the minority who support the teaching do is choose to accept the teaching. They are not convinced by the logic any more than I am. I respect the faith of Catholics who feel this way, but I do not accept the argument put forward.

You are grossly misrepresenting Church teachings. Please do your homework before commenting on it. Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition would be a good place.

 

[ahs]

…I can just see that there are certain circumstances where married couples can get backed into a corner from which there is little to no escape, and most of us are not saints yet, though we strive to be. Equating “grave matter” with “mortal sin” as some apologists do when talking about contraception really locks the cell door on these people. Yet Jesus was the person to free people from these situations, like he freed the adulterous woman. For some people it is their cross to bear and they have to keep going back to Jesus asking for forgiveness and hoping that they never use it again. The question for me is whether you can ask for forgiveness during the Mass or whether it is in the confessional.

Regarding the first part of your post, which I bolded: The circumstances, no matter how bad, don’t make a grave evil any less evil. Couples who have discerned a need of avoiding conception have recourse to abstinence…whether periodic or permanent. If they wish to share the marital embrace, it must be done in the manner that God created it…natural…with natural aspects of uniting the spouses and begin ordered toward procreation. This does not mean every marital act must result in conception, but that act must be open to conception in that the procreative nature is not thwarted by contraception.

How one feels about this is not relvant. One must not try to examine God’s Laws with emotions, but with reason, and perfect obedience to God.

Regarding the second part of your statement, here is a great explanation from sw85 from post #32 that he directed to you:

…This does not give Catholics a free pass to contracept, though.
…you still have a moral duty to avoid sin. Confession is not an “easy out” – you must genuinely detest your sin and thus resolve to avoid it. If you keep your fingers crossed and plan on contracepting that evening while you’re in the confession booth, your penance as such is invalid and you remain guilty of mortal sin.

In addition to that, confessing without contrition (without a firm purpose to amend one’s life) and/or committing a sin under the premise that one will simply confess it later, so it’s okay, is a sin of presumption.

 

[Newbie2]

Here’s the basics:

Life is a basic good.

Purposeful actions directed against a good are evil.

Procreation generates life, and is therefor a related good.

Actions that go against procreation go against life, and are therefor evil.

Ta da.

 

[Nate13]

As I understand it, to accept the Church’s position on contraception you have to believe that 1) things are created by God for a purpose, which is called .natural law’. 2) sex, or the ‘organs of generation’ are created for both procreation and pleasure, and for a reason never fully explained, the two cannot be separated. 3) It is unnatural to intervene by the use of objects or drugs, but not by calculation, mucus measurement and planning, to reduce the chances of conception 4) It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP. 5) Having sex is a really important thing, and therefore this is ‘grave matter’. 6) breaching natural law over 'grave matter is mortally sinful 7) Therefore it is a mortal sin to use ‘artificial birth control’. 8) Therefore wherever the Church can achieve it, ‘artificial’ birth control should be prevented by law from being prescribed or distributed to that purpose to anyone, Catholic or not (as in Ireland until recently).

I don’t accept any of that, and in my experience very few Catholics find it compelling either. What the minority who support the teaching do is choose to accept the teaching. They are not convinced by the logic any more than I am. I respect the faith of Catholics who feel this way, but I do not accept the argument put forward.

I will explain it for you. When you think of it in terms of “well why can’t they be separated?” it is hard to see but when you look at applications of natural law directly it makes since and can be described by basically saying you can never separate the two purposes.

1. We know sex is not always about procreation because 2/3rd’s of the month the chance of getting pregnant is extremely small. Just by acknowledging our bodies and how they were made we can see God’s design and that sex was meant to be more than just procreative. We also can acknowledge the inherent unitive bond that is created during sex between a couple.
2. During the fertile part of the month for a woman it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that part of the point of sex during that time is to be much more procreative oriented. To deny that is to slap God in the face and the way he designed us. If he wanted us to be fertile 1 day of the month don’t you think he would have done that? Natural law is all about acknowledging God’s design and respecting it. Also, while a woman may be fertile that is not 100% of the purpose of sex at this point, and the unitive function is still incredibly important. Two people are making a decision to have a child and it doesn’t get much more unitive than that.
3. I’ve heard examples meant to disprove natural law and call it consistent, but I have yet to hear any that stand. Two things should be remembered when thinking about natural law though.

-Just because you know the purpose of something, does not imply you have to make use of it. We were also designed with an ability to reason to complement the purposes God has designed into us. Using this reason we are able to make decisions based on just reasons to use our faculties or not use our faculties. For example reason is used to figure out if a couple has a just reason to abstain from having sex during a woman’s fertile period. It would also be used by a mother of a child to figure out whether she should make use of the purpose of her breasts to provide milk for her child.

-Going against natural law during sex is much more serious than while eating. While in eating you may be abusing the purpose of food, in sex you are abusing the purpose of your wife or husband. It is a much more serious crime to abuse a human being than it is to abuse an inanimate object.

 

[Nate13]

The thing about this is, the Old law is completely gone after the New law was put into place. That means that this story with Onan is Old law, and is no longer in effect. That is the simple truth to it. Besides, there is no commandment in the Bible that says every act must be open. It does say in Corinthians that children are a blessing, and I’d agree. THat doesn’t mean that the low working wage I receive will support a child. There is simply no commandment for this, though it’d be great if someone were able to support a child and have every act open-but it can’t always happen.

Old law is not completely gone. Just for the record to, the Onan story happened before the law was given to Moses The Onan story happened after Abraham but well before the Ten Commandments and Moses. If your going to disclude Onan, then why not all the original commands God gave to man in the garden of Eden? The thing is you don’t and what Onan was guilty of was breaking natural law. The first thing that happened after God created woman was they went “ah! I see how this works” (ad-libbed a bit there). It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out I’ve been designed like this, and God wishes us to do this… Onan went yeah I get that, but I don’t want to be a part of it. His sin was similar to that of the fallen angles who essentially said the same thing, “I don’t want to be apart of your creation”.

A better way to describe the transition from Old Law to New Law is to say the New Law is a fulfillment of the Old. The whole point of the Old Covenant was to tell us a New Covenant was coming and to prepare us for it.

 

[Nate13]

Correlation does not prove causation.

An explanation may be : people who don’t use contraception are more likely to be of a faith that prohibits divorce.

So your saying we should all be of a faith that prohibits divorce then so we don’t use contraception? I like the way you think, going for the double whammy. No contraception AND no divorce

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

Wizard,

I scanned the thread and I did not see anything commenting on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. This is the key to understanding the Catholic teaching on artificial contraception.

"The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have aquired a man with the **help **of the Lord,’ she said. Genesis 4:1. Bold added by me. ****** As Catholics, we believe that all people are made in the image and likeness of God, and part of this belief includes the belief that we all have immortal souls, or we could say we have a spiritual component to our existence. As humans, we also have a material component. So we are both matter and spirit, unlike animals which are purely material (for our purpose now we should set aside St. Thomas’ discussions on animal spirits and the sentient nature of advanced mammals). As material beings the man and woman provide the material essence to their new child, but with God’s help(Genesis 4:1) the immortal soul is given to the child and the child is made in the image and likeness of God. It is through the free cooperation together between man, woman, and God that new life begins.

Artificial contraception is the purposeful uncooperation with God. The Catholic Church teaches that the marriage act(sexual intercourse) is a gift from God to mankind with two purposes that are inseperable. These are the unative and procreative goals of the marriage act. Contraception is man’s attempt to break assunder the dual goals of the marriage act and in doing so is a direct uncooperation with God’s gift.

Why is this evil? All evil has some relation to the human soul. Any act that bears no relation on the human soul has no ability to be evil. But the direct manipulation of how human persons with their immortal souls come into existence is directly related to the human soul and thus has a direct relationship to good and evil.

You may not believe the above premises but these are the reasons why the Catholic Church teaches what she does and these form the basis of the Church’s teachings on all life issues.

Wizard, I don’t think that you have revealed if you are a man or a woman. I know for sure by your questions that you are a man. The reason why I know this is that the practical evil of birth control is that it is an invention of men to allow them to sexually exploit women. Women have fallen in love with the very thing that turns them into sexual slaves. It is very sad.

If you want more to read on this, investigate JPII’s Theology of the Body.**

Also, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World has a lot to say about contraception (not good) and it is a great read. Check it out.**

 

[Robyn_p]

I think another good resource for anyone who has trouble with this teaching is Patrick Coffin’s book “Sex au naturale” which breaks down the Church’s rich teaching on this subject in a really easy to understand way. Also there is a radio show that broadcasts every weekday called “Catholic Answers live” that I’m sure could definitely answer this and any other question you might have about the Church. They are really good, I highly recommend them. Helped set a fire for my faith I never had before. Don’t give up on the answers! They are out there!