What 10 Priests Say About Contraception

[LongingSoul]

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

That was the answer to your question. You asked "The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?"

The answer to that question is we call that ‘avoiding sex’. When you want to avoid falling pregnant but you are fertile, you avoid sex. That is not contraception. Contraception is when you have sex but make it sterile by the use of something or some action that messes with the process.

 

[Jaaanosik]

That was the answer to your question. You asked "The question: how do we call an act of conception avoidance with good intentions and under good circumstances?"

The answer to that question is we call that ‘avoiding sex’. When you want to avoid falling pregnant but you are fertile, you avoid sex. That is not contraception. Contraception is when you have sex but make it sterile by the use of something or some action that messes with the process.

That’s not what I asked. Your answer is off. Please, see the post #179 for the clarification.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Yes, the name is contraception. It’s not morally neutral. It’s not morally good. It’s morally wrong to interfere with sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy.

If there is none then the next question is why?
Why there would be a double standard in determination of morality of an act?

There is no double standard. If you interfere with the act of sex to sabotage conception, that’s morally wrong.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, the name is contraception. It’s not morally neutral. It’s not morally good. It’s morally wrong to interfere with sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy.

There is no double standard. If you interfere with the act of sex to sabotage conception, that’s morally wrong.

Well, the conception avoidance using condoms with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is called contraception and it is an intrinsically evil act.
If the conception avoidance using condoms with good intentions and under good circumstances is contraception as well then this is in contradiction to the mutilation/amputation determination of the morality and this is a double standard.

This is the core of the natural moral law. There is not supposed to be a double standard.

 

[JimG]

A contraceptive intent is not a good intent. It is an intention to deliberately frustrate the procreative potential of a marital act. (I will note that it is virtually impossible for every marital act to result in procreation, so the evil is not necessarily in the result but in the intent.)

An intent to abstain from sexual intercourse is not an evil intent. It can be morally good, morally neutral, or morally bad if engaged in by a married person for selfish reasons. An intent to abstain is not a contraceptive intent, since abstinence cannot possibly separate the procreative potential from a non-existent act.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, the conception avoidance using condoms with bad intentions and under bad circumstances is called contraception and it is an intrinsically evil act.
If the conception avoidance using condoms with good intentions and under good circumstances is contraception as well then this is in contradiction to the mutilation/amputation determination of the morality and this is a double standard.

This is the core of the natural moral law. There is not supposed to be a double standard.

The only ethical purpose of surgery is to optimise the healthy functioning of the body. The only ethical purpose of sterilising intercourse is to redress a health issue. Just as surgery for non health related purposes is mutilation, sterilising intercourse for non health related purposes is mutilation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The only ethical purpose of surgery is to optimise the healthy functioning of the body. The only ethical purpose of sterilising intercourse is to redress a health issue. Just as surgery for non health related purposes is mutilation, sterilising intercourse for non health related purposes is mutilation.

I am pointing out the principle/methodology how determination of the morality of an act works in one example.
Where does the link to the health come from? I know that mutilation and amputation are related to health but where would the connection to health come from in general principle/methodology. Based on what logic?

CCC:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

Where do you see the relation to health?

 

[Jaaanosik]

A contraceptive intent is not a good intent. It is an intention to deliberately frustrate the procreative potential of a marital act. (I will note that it is virtually impossible for every marital act to result in procreation, so the evil is not necessarily in the result but in the intent.)

An intent to abstain from sexual intercourse is not an evil intent. It can be morally good, morally neutral, or morally bad if engaged in by a married person for selfish reasons. An intent to abstain is not a contraceptive intent, since abstinence cannot possibly separate the procreative potential from a non-existent act.

Correct, but an intent to avoid conception is morally neutral. NFP couples have an intent to avoid conception. If they did not have that intent then why would they chart at all? That would be illogical without the intent.

Married couples using condoms might have two intents: to avoid conception and to give love to each other. The first one is morally neutral and the second one is good.
The issue might appear to be in the way how they do it but it is not because there is nothing wrong in using human inventions for good intent and under good circumstances.

 

[Brendan_64]

Married couples using condoms might have two intents: to avoid conception and to give love to each other. The first one is morally neutral and the second one is good.

Avoiding conception through contraception is not morally neutral, it is intrinsically evil, always. It is not permitted to carry out an evil act for good intentions. Any good that may come from an evil act (eg the sharing of love and building intimacy between spouses) does not justify the evil act. It is still an evil act. You cannot carry out an evil act so that good may come from it.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and 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.**

The Catechism is very clear on this. You cannot simply ignore specific teachings because you do not like them.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Avoiding conception through contraception is not morally neutral, it is intrinsically evil, always. It is not permitted to carry out an evil act for good intentions. Any good that may come from an evil act (eg the sharing of love and building intimacy between spouses) does not justify the evil act. It is still an evil act. You cannot carry out an evil act so that good may come from it.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and 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.

The Catechism is very clear on this. You cannot simply ignore specific teachings because you do not like them.

I am stating the facts. Please, don’t ‘shoot the messenger’.
Intrinsically evil acts are by definition intrinsically evil because they include/assume bad intentions and bad circumstances as shown by the mutilation example.
Once the bad intentions and bad circumstances are not included/assumed and they are switched for good ones then there is a morally OK amputation.
This is all in accordance with CCC 1750.

I am just a messenger, do not trust me, find the best moralist you can and check with him/her.
Check how the mutilation/amputation morality works.

Having said that the contraception is intrinsically evil because it includes bad intentions and bad circumstances.
Avoiding conception using condoms with good intentions and good circumstances is a different act if we keep the same natural law that was applied to mutilation/amputation example.
If this is denied then the natural law would be broken. How that can happen?

 

[Brendan_64]

I am stating the facts. Please, don’t ‘shoot the messenger’.
Intrinsically evil acts are by definition intrinsically evil because they include/assume bad intentions and bad circumstances as shown by the mutilation example.
Once the bad intentions and bad circumstances are not included/assumed and they are switched for good ones then there is a morally OK amputation.

That is simply not true. If the act is objectively evil, then good intentions cannot change it to a good act.

Having said that the contraception is intrinsically evil because it includes bad intentions and bad circumstances.

That is not correct. Every act of contraception is intrinsically evil.

CCC 23470 “… 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.”

Our Church teaches that there can never be an act of contraception that is not intrinsically evil.

Avoiding conception using condoms with good intentions and good circumstances is a different act

That is not what our Church teaches.

What next? Is abortion permitted if it is done with ‘good intentions’ and ‘good circumstances’? What about euthanasia? What about anything we like, so long as we do it with ‘good intentions’ and in ‘good circumstances’?

What you are talking about is moral relativity, where the morality of an act depends on the circumstances and intentions surrounding it. That is not what our Church teaches, not at all. That is how morality is defined by secular society, but it is not how our Church defines morality.

It does seem that you have made your mind up on contraception and choose to close your eyes and ears to what our Church teaches.

 

[Jaaanosik]

That is simply not true. If the act is objectively evil, then good intentions cannot change it to a good act.

That is not correct. Every act of contraception is intrinsically evil.

CCC 23470 “… 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.”

Our Church teaches that there can never be an act of contraception that is not intrinsically evil.

That is not what our Church teaches.

What next? Is abortion permitted if it is done with ‘good intentions’ and ‘good circumstances’? What about euthanasia? What about anything we like, so long as we do it with ‘good intentions’ and in ‘good circumstances’?

What you are talking about is moral relativity, where the morality of an act depends on the circumstances and intentions surrounding it. That is not what our Church teaches, not at all. That is how morality is defined by secular society, but it is not how our Church defines morality.

It does seem that you have made your mind up on contraception and choose to close your eyes and ears to what our Church teaches.

I know what the Church teaches but I have not met anybody yet who can show that the Church is not breaking the natural law by this teaching.
Your argument the Church teaches this and that’s why it is so without any counter argument to my example is not helping.

 

[theCrow]

For most Catholics, the 10 Priests give their sound opinions.

But to be totally realistic, for some Catholics and most other people, when they see:

What 10 Priests Say About Contraception they equate that to

What 10 Vegans say about throwing the perfect BBQ Rib cook off.

So basically, to be logical:

1. Most people enjoy and want to enjoy sexual pleasure without wanting to have a child.
2. Thus, they DO use contraception.

Right or wrong, this is the reality.

 

[manualman]

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.

Reading comprehension is not achieved by counting words. Even an engineer like me knows that much. It’s about comprehending what the words say.

What you are failing to comprehend is that the Onan story involves TWO issues:

1. The refusal to continue his brother’s line.
2. The sin of contraception.

Judahs tells Onan to obey the concept of the Levirate marriage outlined in Dueteronomy: "
But if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My brother-in-law refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel and does not intend to perform his duty toward me.”
Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,”
his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, declaring, “This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!”
And his name shall be called in Israel, “the house of the man stripped of his sandal.”

See what the punishment for that was under the Law of the day? Public humiliation. Not death. Onan got the death penalty. Why? Because the crime he committed was worse than refusal of Levirate marriage. He ALSO committed contraception. That’s what got him killed. (Keeping in mind that LOTS of things received the death penalty in the OT which warrant nothing of the kind under the mercy offered since then in the new covenant of Christ.)

Had he merely refused to give her children, he’d have merely been shamed. But he didn’t. He slept with her, but sterilized the encounter. Contraception. It’s plain as day.

 

[Mark121359]

For most Catholics, the 10 Priests give their sound opinions.

But to be totally realistic, for some Catholics and most other people, when they see:

What 10 Priests Say About Contraception they equate that to

What 10 Vegans say about throwing the perfect BBQ Rib cook off.

So basically, to be logical:

1. Most people enjoy and want to enjoy sexual pleasure without wanting to have a child.
2. Thus, they DO use contraception.

Right or wrong, this is the reality.

It’s not what these 10 priests say, or the 10 priests who would refute them. And believe you me, sadly, there are many Catholic Priests who would in fact refute them. It’s what the Church as an institution teaches. Namely, that the unnatural or artificial means of birth control are immoral. The RCC has constantly taught that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Peace, Mark

 

[manualman]

1. Most people enjoy and want to enjoy sexual pleasure without wanting to have a child.
2. Thus, they DO use contraception.

Right or wrong, this is the reality.

Missing from this progression is the fact that they have an unconscious assumption that there is nothing deeply spiritual about the fact that sex and babies are innately linked so that without really thinking it consciously, they conclude that nothing is lost when they intentionally sterilize the encounter.

This has only become possible in recent decades as the materialist fantasy has taken hold of the modern mind. If we truly are nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, then really can’t be any deeper meaning to the connection. We’re free to intentionally sever that link because they no longer believe in a distinction between freedom and will. It’s the same reason that society is seriously wrestling with the issue of whether a man should be able to call himself a woman.

Catholicism has always understood that real freedom is the ability to be who and what we were created to be. Contraception, then, isn’t freedom. It’s rebellion against who we are and how we were created.

 

[LongingSoul]

Correct, but an intent to avoid conception is morally neutral. NFP couples have an intent to avoid conception. If they did not have that intent then why would they chart at all? That would be illogical without the intent.

Married couples using condoms might have two intents: to avoid conception and to give love to each other. The first one is morally neutral and the second one is good.
The issue might appear to be in the way how they do it but it is not because there is nothing wrong in using human inventions for good intent and under good circumstances.

The couple who are using the condom have the intent to thwart conception once they begin sex. They have forgone the avoiding of conception and entered the process of thwarting it. That’s always a bad intention. Just the same as if I don’t like someone, the good intention is to avoid him. Once I search him out and kill him, my good intention to avoid him no longer exists and has been replaced by my intention to thwart his life. There’s no way any of your word gymnastics could avoid a murder charge.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The couple who are using the condom have the intent to thwart conception once they begin sex. They have forgone the avoiding of conception and entered the process of thwarting it. That’s always a bad intention. Just the same as if I don’t like someone, the good intention is to avoid him. Once I search him out and kill him, my good intention to avoid him no longer exists and has been replaced by my intention to thwart his life. There’s no way any of your word gymnastics could avoid a murder charge.

So NFP couples do not have an intention to thwart conception (thwart as to prevent something from happening).
If they do not have the intention to prevent the conception from happening then why do they chart?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Reading comprehension is not achieved by counting words. Even an engineer like me knows that much. It’s about comprehending what the words say.

What you are failing to comprehend is that the Onan story involves TWO issues:

1. The refusal to continue his brother’s line.
2. The sin of contraception.

Judahs tells Onan to obey the concept of the Levirate marriage outlined in Dueteronomy: "
But if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My brother-in-law refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel and does not intend to perform his duty toward me.”
Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,”
his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, declaring, “This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!”
And his name shall be called in Israel, “the house of the man stripped of his sandal.”

See what the punishment for that was under the Law of the day? Public humiliation. Not death. Onan got the death penalty. Why? Because the crime he committed was worse than refusal of Levirate marriage. He ALSO committed contraception. That’s what got him killed. (Keeping in mind that LOTS of things received the death penalty in the OT which warrant nothing of the kind under the mercy offered since then in the new covenant of Christ.)

Had he merely refused to give her children, he’d have merely been shamed. But he didn’t. He slept with her, but sterilized the encounter. Contraception. It’s plain as day.

Would Onan be killed if he did this with his wife and not his brother’s wife?

Onan took Tamar, he went to her but he was deceiving his father and people.
He was not saying* “I do not want to marry her”.*
He was pretending he wants to give his brother kids.

This is what was wrong. If he used NFP instead of spilling the semen it would make no difference.

 

[theCrow]

Missing from this progression is the fact that they have an unconscious assumption that there is nothing deeply spiritual about the fact that sex and babies are innately linked so that without really thinking it consciously, they conclude that nothing is lost when they intentionally sterilize the encounter.

This has only become possible in recent decades as the materialist fantasy has taken hold of the modern mind. If we truly are nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, then really can’t be any deeper meaning to the connection. We’re free to intentionally sever that link because they no longer believe in a distinction between freedom and will. It’s the same reason that society is seriously wrestling with the issue of whether a man should be able to call himself a woman.

Catholicism has always understood that real freedom is the ability to be who and what we were created to be. Contraception, then, isn’t freedom. It’s rebellion against who we are and how we were created.

That is a very well thought, well written response and opinion, however, I’m just presenting the obvious other opinion that most people, of any, all, or none religions, absolutely love to have sex for pleasure, and pleasure alone.