Vatican stand on contraception

[yesukristus]

Here is my humble unsupported opinion on why the Vatican is so against contraceptives.

The Catholic church is against condoms and other forms and other forms of contraception because such things retard the procreative process. In other word, those who use condoms have little chance of having children. It seems that the Church sees this as an evil greater than mass breakouts of HIV. And why not? Is death due to HIV worse than closing the door to God’s will? After all, God gave us sex for us to create more children for Him. Why should we fear death (no matter how agonizing) so much that we say “Sorry, God, but since I have AIDS I can’t procreate for you.”? Especially as simple medicines would prevent babies in the womb from getting HIV from their parents? Especially as God intended sex within valid marriages to have as one of its primary purposes the bringing up of children? I doubt HIV parent-patients are exempt from this.

 

[Vincent]

Pope John Paul II:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of “total” self-giving.

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.​

 

[puzzleannie]

Here is my humble unsupported opinion on why the Vatican is so against contraceptives.

The Catholic church is against condoms and other forms and other forms of contraception because such things retard the procreative process. In other word, those who use condoms have little chance of having children. It seems that the Church sees this as an evil greater than mass breakouts of HIV. .

if condoms really prevented HIV, which they do very poorly, there might be a basis for discussion here. the moral principles is that two evils do not add up to one good. The moral irresponsibiltiy of a person who knows they have HIV or AIDS and continues to be sexually active is beyond understanding and is reprehensible.

 

[jrcarr]

I am not sure if you are stating that the use of condoms may be re-examined by the Catholic Church IF it prevented HIV/AIDS from spreading? This may sound cold, but I believe the Church would not ever reconsider their current stand.
In Paul VI’s “Humane Vitae”, he predicted the moral degradation of society IF the use of any means of birth control ( except natural ) becomes the norm. People think they are “safe” and “responsible” using condoms and the Pill, but they are neither safe, nor are they moral. All of these diseases are a result of our carelessness and immorality.
The logic of the Church is that the sex act is to be performed only within the boundaries of marriage, with the couple accepting any child born onto them. This is the Gift from God. Unnatural birth control is an intentional denial of God’s creative gift, sort of like finding a loophole in His Wikk in order to satisy our lust exclusively and irresponsibly.

 

[juhothenero]

Here is my humble unsupported opinion on why the Vatican is so against contraceptives.

The Catholic church is against condoms and other forms and other forms of contraception because such things retard the procreative process. In other word, those who use condoms have little chance of having children. It seems that the Church sees this as an evil greater than mass breakouts of HIV. And why not? Is death due to HIV worse than closing the door to God’s will? After all, God gave us sex for us to create more children for Him. Why should we fear death (no matter how agonizing) so much that we say “Sorry, God, but since I have AIDS I can’t procreate for you.”? Especially as simple medicines would prevent babies in the womb from getting HIV from their parents? Especially as God intended sex within valid marriages to have as one of its primary purposes the bringing up of children? I doubt HIV parent-patients are exempt from this.

I suppose if humans would follow Vatican teaching completely there would not be HIV… I think Vatican is setting a high standard. Another issue is when humans are not following it, i just dont know why humans who have premaritual or extramaritual sex would not just use the condom anyway it is not like they are not already braking Gods law

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… In Paul VI’s “Humane Vitae”, he predicted the moral degradation of society IF the use of any means of birth control ( except natural ) becomes the norm…

I think time has proven him to be correct.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

To suggest that the Catholic stance againt contraception is fuel to the HIV epidemic is a cheap shot. Everybody knows that the Catholic Church is against extra-marital affairs. Are adulterers and fornicators avoiding contraception because of the Catholic Church? :nope:

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… The Catholic church is against condoms and other forms and other forms of contraception because such things retard the procreative process…

The best explanation I’ve heard regarding the Catholic stance against contraception is given in the context of our marriages being a witness to the holy marriage of Jesus and His Bride/The Church.

Jesus gave His body completely to His Church. And so, we should give our bodies competely to our spouses, and not contracept it.

 

[Nothumbleenough]

The Catholic church is against condoms and other forms and other forms of contraception because such things retard the procreative process. .

It is my understanding that a catholic man can be married to a non-catholic wife who is on the pill and still participate in the conjungical act and not have it be considered sinful eventhough there is little chance of procreation. So obviously there seems something hypocritical to say both parties have to be open to life when in this example only one party is truly open to life so therefore the “procreative process would be retarded.”

Peace in Christ,
Rob

 

[Biggie]

Wow. :bigyikes: Never heard that one before and I bet someone smarter than me can handle a response to it.

But let’s not forget that the condom aside, many of the most popular forms of birth control are explicitly or wantonly abortifacient. It makes no sense to deny the moral harm in contraception and to condemn abortion.

 

[Nothumbleenough]

Wow. :bigyikes: Never heard that one before and I bet someone smarter than me can handle a response to it.

But let’s not forget that the condom aside, many of the most popular forms of birth control are explicitly or wantonly abortifacient. It makes no sense to deny the moral harm in contraception and to condemn abortion.

After rereading my post, it seems the retarded word comes on stronger than I intended but I was trying to relate to the person’s quote.

I can’t say for a fact that my example is within the church’s teaching. But I can tell you that one of the most orthodox priest within the Kansas City/St. Joe Diocese has said it was ok.

I am struggling right now with the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control. Not as someone who wants to limit the number of children I have so I can maintain my 7 handicap at golf or play poker with the guys once a month. I am the father of soon to be 8 kids who has abidded by the teachings of the church on birth control. I now have very little time but to work and am not nearly as active in the daily lives of my children as I should be. My wife who works harder than I do is going through the same struggles. Our friends say, “You know what causes all those babies don’t you?” Yes, a little bit of intimacy a couple times a month. And the suggestion that a couple should forget about having sex in their late 30’s is not only ridiculous but also unbiblical.

But I would not nor would my wife considering taking any abortifacient which allows for the possibility of killing a baby in its very ealieriest form of life. This teaching is clear based on the 10 commandments and the taking of life.

Peace in Christ

 

[Corki]

It is my understanding that a catholic man can be married to a non-catholic wife who is on the pill and still participate in the conjungical act and not have it be considered sinful eventhough there is little chance of procreation. So obviously there seems something hypocritical to say both parties have to be open to life when in this example only one party is truly open to life so therefore the “procreative process would be retarded.”

Peace in Christ,
Rob

Close but not exactly the way it is. There is still sin, it just isn’t the husband’s sin, under certain narrow conditions. First of all the husband would have to not participate in the sin. So, he could not just tell his wife “since you’re not Catholic, you go on the pill.” Second, he has to make sure his wife knows that it is wrong and periodically try to convince her to abandon ABC. It is also perfectly legitimate for him to forgo relations until she stops contracepting but it isn’t required.

Both parties have to be open to life at the time of the marriage - it’s in the vows. Otherwise, the marriage may not even be valid.

 

[Nothumbleenough]

Close but not exactly the way it is. There is still sin, it just isn’t the husband’s sin, under certain narrow conditions. First of all the husband would have to not participate in the sin. So, he could not just tell his wife “since you’re not Catholic, you go on the pill.” Second, he has to make sure his wife knows that it is wrong and periodically try to convince her to abandon ABC. It is also perfectly legitimate for him to forgo relations until she stops contracepting but it isn’t required.

Both parties have to be open to life at the time of the marriage - it’s in the vows. Otherwise, the marriage may not even be valid.

Please explain what you call the act if the woman is not open to life by taking ABC. If it is not valid, must it then be invalid, i.e. sinful. Or can it be invalid and not sinful?
In this example, they were not married in the church but the man is a weekly attendant at the communion line. I am trying understand how the church has a certain set of rules on sex for couples who are practicing catholics but different rules on the individual who is married, having sex with a wife who is not catholic and who isn’t open to life.

Peace in Christ

 

[yesukristus]

Now all your above posts are interesting but I’m more interested in your opinions on my opinion, which is that the Vatican, though sympathizing with AIDS sufferers, is not willing to take actions that will in any way close the door to procreation.
We Catholics view sex as unitive (as in uniting two people together) and procreative (as in allowing God to use the sex partners to create life). One may even say that this is the vocation of all who have sex (a bit much, but bear with me). Now do you think the Vatican will let anything get in the way of God’s will for those who have sex (which is basically what vocation means)?
I’m not so interested in the effects of contraception on our morals- just AIDS and childbearing. Thanks.

 

[Biggie]

Now all your above posts are interesting but I’m more interested in your opinions on my opinion, which is that the Vatican, though sympathizing with AIDS sufferers, is not willing to take actions that will in any way close the door to procreation.
We Catholics view sex as unitive (as in uniting two people together) and procreative (as in allowing God to use the sex partners to create life). One may even say that this is the vocation of all who have sex (a bit much, but bear with me). Now do you think the Vatican will let anything get in the way of God’s will for those who have sex (which is basically what vocation means)?
I’m not so interested in the effects of contraception on our morals- just AIDS and childbearing. Thanks.

I guess I’m not seeing the box you seem to feel the Church has put AIDS sufferers in and really thought it was well answered earlier. What’s the inevitability of sex? The Church teaches to control sexuality predicting that bad things happen from concupiscence. When bad things happen, the Church teaches self control. In both situations, self control works.

We always oddly seem to assume that the answer to AIDS is to announce we know sensuality cannot be brought under self control. Do you think decades of telling people sex cannot be controlled might contribute to people’s beliefs that they cannot control themselves?

 

[yesukristus]

But what about married couples who have AIDS? Do they stop having children just because on of the partners have AIDS? In other words, which is more important, having children in your family or not spreading AIDS to your spouse?

 

[Biggie]

But what about married couples who have AIDS? Do they stop having children just because on of the partners have AIDS? In other words, which is more important, having children in your family or not spreading AIDS to your spouse?

Don’t you just end relations with your spouse? I do if it’s me.

 

[Corki]

Don’t you just end relations with your spouse? I do if it’s me.

That’s the only real choice that I can see. This doesn’t seem complicated. Not only from a moral position but from the position of not doing anythiing to bring mortal harm to your spouse. Not that it would be easy but it would be the right thing to do.

 

[Corki]

Please explain what you call the act if the woman is not open to life by taking ABC. If it is not valid, must it then be invalid, i.e. sinful. Or can it be invalid and not sinful?

There are several questions/issues here

1. It isn’t a question of the act being valid or invalid; it is a question of whether the marriage is invalid. For example, if a person marries in the Church (or with the Church’s dispensation) and intends to never have children, the marriage could be found to be invalid.

In this example, they were not married in the church but the man is a weekly attendant at the communion line.

1. If a Catholic marries without the blessing of the Church, he or she is not considered married by the Church. They are living in sin. As a rule, the Catholic would not be disposed for Communion. But you don’t know the real circumstances of the couple. It is possible that they are living as “brother and sister” while working on having their marriage convalidated.

I am trying understand how the church has a certain set of rules on sex for couples who are practicing catholics but different rules on the individual who is married, having sex with a wife who is not catholic and who isn’t open to life.

Peace in Christ

I don’t know what you mean by “a different set of rules”. There is one set of rules: couples must be open to life and use of contraception is a sin. But the Church doesn’t hold people accountable for the sins of others. So a man whose wife uses contraception against his strong objections doesn’t sin - the wife does.

 

[Biggie]

That’s the only real choice that I can see. This doesn’t seem complicated. Not only from a moral position but from the position of not doing anythiing to bring mortal harm to your spouse. Not that it would be easy but it would be the right thing to do.

Right, but it’s as if there is nothing more to life. I’m a healthy “red blooded American” male who’s seen a big slice of the world and I’m not completely stupid, but if it came about that I were unable to exercise the sexual part of my life as well it might (and eventually does for most) I’m pretty sure I’d go on and life would still have meaning. Who knows, it might be a lot more peaceful too!