What 10 Priests Say About Contraception

[Jaaanosik]

Hello Jaa.

How is it determined? Here is the account of Onan and Tamar in the O.T. In it Onan, contracepts via coitus interruptus and it is in this act that the Church found the phrase Onanism which usually refers to sexual sins and has expanded over the years to include more than simply coitus interruptus. Please note that God took Onan’s life for this sin. Certainly a deadly one.

Genesis 38:6-10

6 Judah got a wife named Tamar for his firstborn, Er. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, greatly offended the LORD; so the LORD took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Have intercourse with your brother’s wife, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” 9 Onan, however, knew that the offspring would not be his; so* whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground*,** to avoid giving offspring to his brother**. 10 What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/38

Hope this helps.

Glenda

Glenda,
There are over 300 words in the Onan story describing the setup and God’s command to preserve his brother’s line. There are only 7 words describing the way how Onan disobeyed God.

The conclusion is that Onan was killed because of the way how he contracepted and not because of disobeying God. Really?
I guess if Onan disobeyed God by using NFP all would be good. Right?

It appears that the Onan story does not help to explain why the contraception is immoral.

 

[Brendan_64]

The NFP aims to prevent conception as well. There is nothing wrong with that.

That is not true. NFP isn’t simply ‘Catholic contraception’ it is working with the natural rhythms created by God, and not seeking to work in opposition to natural law.

God does not intend to create a new life each time married couples have sex.

And that is His decision to make not ours God is entitled to decide whether to create or not, we are in no position to decide to over-rule His choice through using contraception.

Back to the question. How do we know that one way is moral and the other way is immoral?

The fact that our Church teaches that it is immoral is enough in itself. Christ formed the Church and gave it authority on Earth. If we question the authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, we question the authority of Christ.

How do we know that using condoms is immoral. What is the natural law behind it?

Enough has been said on this thread, but it seems that whatever is said you simply refuse to accept what our Church teaches on this. Using contraception involves working in opposition to the natural rhythm instilled in mankind be God, and actively seeks to block creation of another human.

The NFP couples preventing conception might see a new life as unwanted ‘side-effect’ as well.

NFP does not prevent conception any more than abstinence does. NFP is not contraception since conception is not likely to take place at these times. NFP does not prevent conception.

The issue is that the Church pretends it sees into the hearts of the married couples and that by definition they say it’s not unwanted ‘side-effect’.
In whatever way the NFP couple accepts unplanned baby the same way a couple using condoms can accept the baby as well.

Again, NFP does not prevent conception. And in regard to your reference to the Church, you seem to view the Churech as something man-made. The Church was created by Christ Himself, and Christ has given the Church the authority to bind and loose. The authority of the Church on these matters comes direct from Our Lord.

Only God sees into the hearts of married couples.

That is true, however God has given authority to the Church on matters of faith and morals, and on such matters the Church is infallible. If the Church says that something is immoral, then it is immoral, whether we agree with it or not.

 

[Jaaanosik]

That is not true. NFP isn’t simply ‘Catholic contraception’ it is working with the natural rhythms created by God, and not seeking to work in opposition to natural law.
And that is His decision to make not ours God is entitled to decide whether to create or not, we are in no position to decide to over-rule His choice through using contraception.
The fact that our Church teaches that it is immoral is enough in itself. Christ formed the Church and gave it authority on Earth. If we question the authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals, we question the authority of Christ.
Enough has been said on this thread, but it seems that whatever is said you simply refuse to accept what our Church teaches on this. Using contraception involves working in opposition to the natural rhythm instilled in mankind be God, and actively seeks to block creation of another human.

NFP does not prevent conception any more than abstinence does. NFP is not contraception since conception is not likely to take place at these times. NFP does not prevent conception.
Again, NFP does not prevent conception. And in regard to your reference to the Church, you seem to view the Churech as something man-made. The Church was created by Christ Himself, and Christ has given the Church the authority to bind and loose. The authority of the Church on these matters comes direct from Our Lord.

That is true, however God has given authority to the Church on matters of faith and morals, and on such matters the Church is infallible. If the Church says that something is immoral, then it is immoral, whether we agree with it or not.

The HV says the contraception is immoral based on the natural law.
Please, explain the natural law behind the teaching.
There is nothing wrong if you don’t know how to explain it and it would be OK to say so.
I don’t understand it. That’s why I am looking for somebody who would be able to help.

 

[Brendan_64]

The HV says the contraception is immoral based on the natural law.
Please, explain the natural law behind the teaching.

It’s already been said. Natural law in the case is God’s plan for creation. Sexual intercourse exists for the creation of new life, that is God’s plan inherent in nature. To seek to actively block the creation of new life, is to seek to work in opposition to God’s plan inherent in the natural rhythms God has designed. NFP does not contravene natural law (nor does abstinence) because it does not block the creation of life. Contraception, on the other hand, does block the conception of life, and effectively stops creation. That is how it is immoral based on Natural Law.

There is nothing wrong if you don’t know how to explain it and it would be OK to say so.
I don’t understand it. That’s why I am looking for somebody who would be able to help.

It seems to me that you are looking for a way in which to justify contraception as not being immoral. Natural Law on this issue is fairly straightforward. Sexual intercourse during times of fertility is designed to create new life, and blocking this abuses the sexual function reducing it to a mere source of pleasure or intimacy while blocking creation.

Glenda,
The conclusion is that Onan was killed because of the way how he contracepted and not because of disobeying God. Really?
I guess if Onan disobeyed God by using NFP all would be good. Right?

It appears that the Onan story does not help to explain why the contraception is immoral.

NFP is NOT contraception!

Contraception means blocking conception. NFP does not block conception since intercourse takes place outside of the woman’s fertile time. NFP is no more a form of contraception than abstinence is.

The Church deems all forms of contraception to be sinful, NFP is not a form of contraception.

 

[LongingSoul]

The NFP aims to prevent conception as well. There is nothing wrong with that.

The point of NFP is not to abuse sex. The point of contraception is to take the sex act and strip it of natural and divine meaning to gorge on sexual lust. Can you not see the difference?

God does not intend to create a new life each time married couples have sex.
The Church recognizes it as well therefore we have NFP.
So what is the problem? The way how it’s achieved.
Back to the question. How do we know that one way is moral and the other way is immoral?
How do we know that using condoms is immoral. What is the natural law behind it?

Sex is an important physical function to the propogation of species. For humans it also promotes unity in the couple who create families by their union. Families are the most important social unit there is. Sterilising the sexual act to create a meaningless pleasure, promotes lust, pre and extra marital sexual activity and the breakdown of families as a sacred social unit. It creates and esteems meaningless units that have no purpose other than the personal pleasure of the sexual faculty. This is why it undermines natural law and is immoral.

The NFP couples preventing conception might see a new life as unwanted ‘side-effect’ as well.
The issue is that the Church pretends it sees into the hearts of the married couples and that by definition they say it’s not unwanted ‘side-effect’.
In whatever way the NFP couple accepts unplanned baby the same way a couple using condoms can accept the baby as well.
Only God sees into the hearts of married couples.

The Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit seeks to build the family of God by teaching Gods will for us. She teaches that man was created for divine life and not for his own sake. We are journeying towards the sharing in eternal life with God forever and everything we do on this earth needs to be done with that goal at its heart. Sexual intercourse and marriage are the greatest gifts God gave to man and through these gifts we share in the foretaste of the divine life to come. The things that we do that take divine meaning out of our sexual acts and devote them solely to meaningless pleasure constitute lust and rejection of Gods plan for us. They blind us to the light we journey towards and separate us from our fellow man.

 

[manualman]

…
The conclusion is that Onan was killed because of the way how he contracepted and not because of disobeying God. Really?
I guess if Onan disobeyed God by using NFP all would be good. Right?

It appears that the Onan story does not help to explain why the contraception is immoral.

The Law on the matter at the time was clear that the penalty for refusing to carry on the brother’s line was public humiliation, not death. It’s right there in the textual context if you’ve read it. Onan’s mortal sin in the matter is pretty clearly the fact that he engaged in sexual intercourse while deliberately refusing to give her a child that might otherwise have resulted from that action. That’s pretty much the definition of contraception.

Had he consistently refused her affection outright unless he was sure she was in the infertile time (NFP), his punishment would have been public humiliation. The two issues are separate.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It’s already been said. Natural law in the case is God’s plan for creation. Sexual intercourse exists for the creation of new life, that is God’s plan inherent in nature. To seek to actively block the creation of new life, is to seek to work in opposition to God’s plan inherent in the natural rhythms God has designed. NFP does not contravene natural law (nor does abstinence) because it does not block the creation of life. Contraception, on the other hand, does block the conception of life, and effectively stops creation. That is how it is immoral based on Natural Law.
It seems to me that you are looking for a way in which to justify contraception as not being immoral. Natural Law on this issue is fairly straightforward. Sexual intercourse during times of fertility is designed to create new life, and blocking this abuses the sexual function reducing it to a mere source of pleasure or intimacy while blocking creation.

NFP is NOT contraception!

Contraception means blocking conception. NFP does not block conception since intercourse takes place outside of the woman’s fertile time. NFP is no more a form of contraception than abstinence is.

The Church deems all forms of contraception to be sinful, NFP is not a form of contraception.

It appears you are mixing the natural law and laws of nature.

There is nothing wrong with conception avoidance.
The NFP helps to avoid conception in a natural way.
The condoms help to avoid conception in a man made way.

Why is man made conception avoidance forbidden when in other areas human inventions are allowed to be used for unnatural things?

 

[Brendan_64]

It appears you are mixing the natural law and laws of nature.

No I am not. Have you read what people have written on Natural law on here?

There is nothing wrong with conception avoidance.
The NFP helps to avoid conception in a natural way.
The condoms help to avoid conception in a man made way.

Condoms are contraceptive, NFP is not. Condoms prevent conception and deliberately block the creation of a life. They work against God’s will by stopping the creation of a new life. NFP does not stop the creation of a new life because intercourse during these times is outside of the woman’s fertile time. NFP is no more contraceptive than abstinence is. The Church opposes contraception, not family planning. NFP and abstinence are not contraceptive, condoms etc. are.

Why is man made conception avoidance forbidden when in other areas human inventions are allowed to be used for unnatural things?

Because contraception stops the creation of a new life and blocks conception.

Enough has been written on this by many posters on this thread giving you the reasons why. Are you deliberately ignoring these? It seems to me that you have decided that contraception is not immoral, despite what our Church teaches, and what people have tried to explain to you on here.

 

[glendab]

Hello Jaa.

Only God sees into the hearts of married couples.

This is very true. Only sometimes He see there this: “Non servio.”

Glenda

 

[Jaaanosik]

The point of NFP is not to abuse sex. The point of contraception is to take the sex act and strip it of natural and divine meaning to gorge on sexual lust. Can you not see the difference?

How do you know that what a married couple feels when they use a condom.
Are you sure they are after the sexual lust? How do you know their intentions? Who are you?
Only God sees into hearts of people!

Sex is an important physical function to the propogation of species. For humans it also promotes unity in the couple who create families by their union. Families are the most important social unit there is. Sterilising the sexual act to create a meaningless pleasure, promotes lust, pre and extra marital sexual activity and the breakdown of families as a sacred social unit. It creates and esteems meaningless units that have no purpose other than the personal pleasure of the sexual faculty. This is why it undermines natural law and is immoral.

Married couples might be strengthening their union by having sex while using condom.
To say otherwise is dishonest because as mentioned before only God sees into the human hearts.

We don’t have to talk about sex outside of the marriage. There is no dispute there. I guess we all agree it’s wrong.

The Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit seeks to build the family of God by teaching Gods will for us. She teaches that man was created for divine life and not for his own sake. We are journeying towards the sharing in eternal life with God forever and everything we do on this earth needs to be done with that goal at its heart. Sexual intercourse and marriage are the greatest gifts God gave to man and through these gifts we share in the foretaste of the divine life to come. The things that we do that take divine meaning out of our sexual acts and devote them solely to meaningless pleasure constitute lust and rejection of Gods plan for us. They blind us to the light we journey towards and separate us from our fellow man.

Are you sure the divine meaning is the specific way how to have sex? That seems strange.

Does it mean that married partners do not love each other when they talk over the phone and not in the natural way face to face?
Love is the divine meaning of the marital act. It does not depend on the way how the marital act is done.

 

[glendab]

Hello Jaa.

It appears you are mixing the natural law and laws of nature.

There is nothing wrong with conception avoidance.
The NFP helps to avoid conception in a natural way.
The condoms help to avoid conception in a man made way.

Why is man made conception avoidance forbidden when in other areas human inventions are allowed to be used for unnatural things?

If you have convinced yourself that contraception is okay, then there is little I or anyone can do to change your mind. Only God can soften the hardened heart that it takes to remove the procreative aspects of the marital act from it. But this bit of information might help you see how long we’ve held that it is immoral. Follow the link for the rest.

Glenda

THE FATHERS KNOW BEST
“This Rock” Magazine

Contraception
Historically, Christians always have condemned contraceptive sex. The two forms mentioned in the Bible, and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9-10, Deut. 23:1). The Fathers of the Church recognized that in natural law the purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that natural purpose, is therefore a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few extraordinary cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.

How badly things have decayed may be seen by comparing the current state of non-Catholic churches, where most pastors counsel young couples to decide before they are married what form of contraception they use, with these quotations from the Fathers, who condemned contraception in general as well as in particular forms of it (sterilization, oral contraceptives, , and orally-consummated sex).

Many Protestants, perhaps beginning to see the inevitable connection between contraception and divorce and between contraception and abortion, are now returning to the historic Christian position and are rejecting contraceptive sexual practices.

Letter of Barnabas

“Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11 :29]. For he means, 'Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness”’ ( 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” ( 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

Clement of Alexandria

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion]” ( 9:12 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” ( 6:20 [A.D. 3o7]).

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

 

[glendab]

Hello Jaa.

Here is another letter that may help you in your doubts. It is by Archbishop Chaput and was written when he was in Colorado, not here in Philly. It is very good and gets to several of the points in this thread. I suggest you follow the link to the rest of it.

Glenda

OF HUMAN LIFE
A pastoral letter to the people of God of northern Colorado on the truth and meaning of married love

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFM

Dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

1. Thirty years ago this week, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on the regulation of births. It is certainly the most misunderstood papal intervention of this century. It was the spark which led to three decades of doubt and dissent among many Catholics, especially in the developed countries. With the passage of time, however, it has also proven prophetic. It teaches the truth.

My purpose in this pastoral letter, therefore, is simple. I believe the message of Humanae Vitae is not a burden but a joy. I believe this encyclical offers a key to deeper, richer marriages. And so what I seek from the family of our local Church is not just a respectful nod toward a document which critics dismiss as irrelevant, but an active and sustained effort to study Humanae Vitae; to teach it faithfully in our parishes; and to encourage our married couples to live it.

I. THE WORLD SINCE 1968

1. Sooner or later, every pastor counsels someone struggling with an addiction. Usually the problem is alcohol or drugs. And usually the scenario is the same. The addict will acknowledge the problem but claim to be powerless against it. Or, alternately, the addict will deny having any problem at all, even if the addiction is destroying his or her health and wrecking job and family. No matter how much sense the pastor makes; no matter how true and persuasive his arguments; and no matter how life-threatening the situation, the addict simply cannot understand – or cannot act on – the counsel. The addiction, like a thick pane of glass, divides the addict from anything or anyone that might help.
2. One way to understand the history of Humanae Vitae is to examine the past three decades through this metaphor of addiction. I believe the developed world finds this encyclical so hard to accept not because of any defect in Paul VI’s reasoning, but because of the addictions and contradictions it has inflicted upon itself, exactly as the Holy Father warned.
3. In presenting his encyclical, Paul VI cautioned against four main problems (HV 17) that would arise if Church teaching on the regulation of births was ignored. First, he warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.” Exactly this has happened. Few would deny that the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, venereal disease and out of wedlock births have all massively increased since the mid-1960s. Obviously, the birth control pill has not been the only factor in this unraveling. But it has played a major role. In fact, the cultural revolution since 1968, driven at least in part by transformed attitudes toward sex, would not have been possible or sustainable without easy access to reliable contraception. In this, Paul VI was right.
4. Second, he also warned that man would lose respect for woman and “no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium,” to the point that he would consider her “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” In other words, according to the Pope, contraception might be marketed as liberating for women, but the real “beneficiaries” of birth control pills and devices would be men. Three decades later, exactly as Paul VI suggested, contraception has released males – to a historically unprecedented degree – from responsibility for their sexual aggression. In the process, one of the stranger ironies of the contraception debate of the past generation has been this: Many feminists have attacked the Catholic Church for her alleged disregard of women, but the Church in Humanae Vitae identified and rejected sexual exploitation of women years before that message entered the cultural mainstream. Again, Paul VI was right.
5. Third, the Holy Father also warned that widespread use of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” As we have since discovered, eugenics didn’t disappear with Nazi racial theories in 1945. Population control policies are now an accepted part of nearly every foreign aid discussion. The massive export of contraceptives, abortion and sterilization by the developed world to developing countries – frequently as a prerequisite for aid dollars and often in direct contradiction to local moral traditions – is a thinly disguised form of population warfare and cultural re- engineering. Again, Paul VI was right.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CHAPUTHV.HTM

 

[Jaaanosik]

The Law on the matter at the time was clear that the penalty for refusing to carry on the brother’s line was public humiliation, not death. It’s right there in the textual context if you’ve read it. Onan’s mortal sin in the matter is pretty clearly the fact that he engaged in sexual intercourse while deliberately refusing to give her a child that might otherwise have resulted from that action. That’s pretty much the definition of contraception.

Had he consistently refused her affection outright unless he was sure she was in the infertile time (NFP), his punishment would have been public humiliation. The two issues are separate.

So he was killed because of the way how he disobeyed God
… and not because of what he did - disobeying God and why he did that?
Are you sure?

Why NFP does not count as ‘refusing to give her a child’?

 

[manualman]

So he was killed because of the way how he disobeyed God
… and not because of what he did - disobeying God and why he did that?
Are you sure?

Why NFP does not count as ‘refusing to give her a child’?

I don’t follow your first sentence. Can you rephrase please?

As for the last sentence, it would. And the harsh, OT punishment for that would be public humiliation. The punishment Onan got was death because it was a punishment for contraception. Contraception was a worse crime than ‘failure to provide his brother an heir.’ (which of course is merely a cultural construct, not an innate moral precept. You don’t see God striking anybody dead for violating a cultural norm even in the OT.)

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t follow your first sentence. Can you rephrase please?

As for the last sentence, it would. And the harsh, OT punishment for that would be public humiliation. The punishment Onan got was death because it was a punishment for contraception. Contraception was a worse crime than ‘failure to provide his brother an heir.’ (which of course is merely a cultural construct, not an innate moral precept. You don’t see God striking anybody dead for violating a cultural norm even in the OT.)

It’s simple. The whole Onan story describes the circumstances, Onan’s intentions and God’s command that he disobeyed. His mortal sin and the reason why he was killed is disobeying God. This is what and why of the story.
How he disobeyed God is secondary.
The circumstances and intent are described in over 300 words. The way how it was done in 7 words. Does the moral of the story lie in those 7 words and the rest is supposed to be overlooked?
That’s not a good reading comprehension.

The end result of NFP would be the same - disobedience.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No I am not. Have you read what people have written on Natural law on here?

Condoms are contraceptive, NFP is not. Condoms prevent conception and deliberately block the creation of a life. They work against God’s will by stopping the creation of a new life. NFP does not stop the creation of a new life because intercourse during these times is outside of the woman’s fertile time. NFP is no more contraceptive than abstinence is. The Church opposes contraception, not family planning. NFP and abstinence are not contraceptive, condoms etc. are.

Because contraception stops the creation of a new life and blocks conception.

Enough has been written on this by many posters on this thread giving you the reasons why. Are you deliberately ignoring these? It seems to me that you have decided that contraception is not immoral, despite what our Church teaches, and what people have tried to explain to you on here.

An act of conception avoidance done with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is defined as contraception - an intrinsically evil act.
The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?

 

[Brendan_64]

An act of conception avoidance done with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is defined as contraception - an intrinsically evil act.
The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?

Please quote the source of that statement, because the Catechism states as follows.

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 favour 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.

We are not at liberty to create our own definitions to suit our own views on such matters.

 

[LongingSoul]

An act of conception avoidance done with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is defined as contraception - an intrinsically evil act.
The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?

Avoiding sex is NOT contraception. Why do you keep saying that? Stop saying it.

Contraception:- Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

Avoiding sex is NEVER contraception. Perhaps married people may choose to limit their family size for selfish reasons, (which none of us has a right to judge)… but their sin is selfishness… NOT contraception. Contraception is having sex while sabotaging the process to prevent conception. Not having sex in the first place is NOT contracepting.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik:

An act of conception avoidance done with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is defined as contraception - an intrinsically evil act.
The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?

Avoiding sex is NOT contraception. Why do you keep saying that? Stop saying it.

Contraception:- Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

Avoiding sex is NEVER contraception. Perhaps married people may choose to limit their family size for selfish reasons, (which none of us has a right to judge)… but their sin is selfishness… NOT contraception. Contraception is having sex while sabotaging the process to prevent conception. Not having sex in the first place is NOT contracepting.

Where do you see words “avoiding sex” in my post? What are you talking about?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Please quote the source of that statement, because the Catechism states as follows.

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 favour 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.

We are not at liberty to create our own definitions to suit our own views on such matters.

Here is an example.
A surgery/act that changes body is a morally neutral act.
A surgery/act that changes body with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is called mutilation. The mutilation is an intrinsically evil act.
A surgery/act that changes body with good intentions and under good circumstances is called amputation. The amputation is OK.

All I am asking is if there is a name for the act of conception avoidance by using condom with good intentions and under good circumstances.
If there is none then the next question is why?
Why there would be a double standard in determination of morality of an act?