What 10 Priests Say About Contraception

[LongingSoul]

Great post! Whatever works for you might not work for many others though.

Try to imagine this hypothetical scenario. The teaching would be that condoms are the only allowed method and the NFP is forbidden. The only way to love God is to use one method and not the other. How would you feel? Would you be interested in knowing the reasoning behind it if it was breaking your heart?

Throughout my life as a Catholic, there have been many teachings that have ‘broken my heart’ and where I’ve wanted to exercise reason in a way that detonated sacred teaching. That is a temptation of the human condition. To obey and sacrifice in Catholic style, ultimately takes us to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus is in complete agony in the face of the will of God. We kneel with Him as His friends sleep oblivious, because we have something they don’t. We*** know ***what His suffering and sacrifice have bought for us.

When speaking of human reason, Aquinas noted “Man should not strive after that which is beyond his reason. As Ecclesiastics says, “Do not be curious about what is above you” (Ecclus. 3:22).” We have the capacity to deceive ourselves horribly when we attempt to discredit the truth in sacred teaching rather than using our reasoning to conform to it. You see the result of this type of false premise in many scientific fields also. ie the reasoning behind falsifying climate data to serve an agenda, or (my husband is a computer scientist with a large essential utilities org.) the type of maths heresies in programming that serve to gain tertiary honours points… but couldn’t support the structure of Pong let alone important public infrastructures.

Natural law is built on a myriad of equations to support the civil and moral laws that protect and nourish us. Each equation has to be accurate and functional to carry the weight of the infrastructure of humanity. Some of those equations are heartbreaking because they mean self denial and sacrifice, but we as humans are sufficiently enlightened to see a bigger picture and understand our role as an equation that supports it.

What I see you trying to do is ‘move the brackets’ in an unnatural way to achieve a conclusion you desire… and still thinking that it conforms to natural law. It doesn’t. It creates the bug that weakens the whole structure. My husband has been a ‘bug buster’ in his organisation for nearly 25 years and it never fails to amaze us how ignorant some programmers are of the consequences of their lazy or careless or insular attitude to their small roles. We each serve the big picture of humanity by the operation of our lives in descending equations that have to be accurate and true in and of themselves.

Contraception including condoms by their self oriented purpose, create a bug in the infrastructure of marriage and by extension, society. It is contra to the big picture that requires that the final outcome depend on the natural functions that reflect natural and divine purpose in every way.

Going back to the reality. You sounded like there might be an exception in the teaching and the conception avoidance using condoms is OK under the circumstances when the NFP does not work. Would you point me in a direction of such a Church’s document?

If there is no such document then there is still the unresolved issue of the double standard in the natural law. How can this be acceptable?

Condoms as with any other product or technique designed to inhibit the dialogue of intercourse, are intrinsically evil. The only document that I have heard addressing other uses of condoms was Pope Benedicts towards the ‘banality of sexuality’ and the fact of HIV where he says…
*
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility [emphasis added], on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.”*

This comment addressed a situation where contraception was not the issue. As with other products that can be used for contraception, the Church does not prohibit a product when the health of a person requires treatment. However anything that interrupts the normal process of intercourse for the purpose of contraception is always intrinsically evil.

 

[adytum]

Nonsense. It’s simply a matter of self-control. Some people talk as if we are slaves to our urges and desires. We only become slaves to our desires if we choose to be. God gave us the gift of free will, we are free to choose, we are in control of what we choose to do.

Maybe sometimes, yeah…but as Mr. Realist Paul of Tarsus writes,

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. (Romans 7)

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

When speaking of human reason, Aquinas noted “Man should not strive after that which is beyond his reason. As Ecclesiastics says, “Do not be curious about what is above you” (Ecclus. 3:22).” We have the capacity to deceive ourselves horribly when we attempt to discredit the truth in sacred teaching rather than using our reasoning to conform to it.

Aquinas was a smart man. It does not appear to me that I am reaching beyond my reason.
I ask simple questions about the Church’s teaching.

…

Natural law is built on a myriad of equations to support the civil and moral laws that protect and nourish us. Each equation has to be accurate and functional to carry the weight of the infrastructure of humanity. Some of those equations are heartbreaking because they mean self denial and sacrifice, but we as humans are sufficiently enlightened to see a bigger picture and understand our role as an equation that supports it.

The natural law stands on the human nature - capability to reason. That includes simple logic - AND, OR, IF… THEN…, NOR, … statements. Sometimes the reasoning can get more complicated but …

… it’s God’s law written upon our hearts. It’s supposed to be the same for everybody. It can not be and it’s not supposed to be complicated and confusing so much that most of the people would not understand it.

What I see you trying to do is ‘move the brackets’ in an unnatural way to achieve a conclusion you desire… and still thinking that it conforms to natural law.

No, I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the teaching, how the morality of the act was determined. I ask straightforward questions and the answers are not satisfactory.

…

Condoms as with any other product or technique designed to inhibit the dialogue of intercourse, are intrinsically evil. The only document that I have heard addressing other uses of condoms was Pope Benedicts towards the ‘banality of sexuality’ and the fact of HIV where he says…
*
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility [emphasis added], on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.”*

This comment addressed a situation where contraception was not the issue. As with other products that can be used for contraception, the Church does not prohibit a product when the health of a person requires treatment. However anything that interrupts the normal process of intercourse for the purpose of contraception is always intrinsically evil.

There is no Church’s teaching allowing conception avoidance by using condoms for married couples therefore the double standard question is still unanswered. How is this acceptable?

Now another example of the natural law - a determination of the morality of an act using human nature - capability to reason, common sense.
There are three things being used to determine morality of an act - object, intentions, circumstances. All three of them are supposed to be good or in case of the object it has to be at least morally neutral.
Simple logic and common sense say that murder can be murder only when there is premeditated intention to kill or/and there are bad circumstances, for example a person is in such a state of mind that it cannot resist an impulse to kill. The intention to kill can differentiate between murder and let’s say an accidental killing during a self-defense. This applies not only to our earthly courts but it’s reasonable to think that God who sees into our hearts would apply similar point of view.
It appears that this is what’s written upon our hearts. Would you agree?

Please, pause for a minute and think about it before you continue reading.

Now, how this can be reconciled with the CCC 1756?
“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

What do you think? Why the sudden switch to the object? There is no way to say a murder is a murder without the intentions and circumstances. That’s logically impossible.

 

[manualman]

It’s not logical to conclude that Onan’s story implies a specific way to have sex every single time it occurs.

Oh, I certainly agree with you that the Onan story is not enough by itself to illustrate that contraception is forbidden under all circumstances. That’s not what the bible is for. It’s not a catechism, it’s a story of God revealing Himself to His people.

The theology and catechesis comes from the church. The same church Christ established and granted authority to teach in his name and the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard against false teaching. That authority has pointed out that the Onan story illustrates the immorality of contraception, not that the Onan story defines the teaching on contraception.

The teaching itself comes from a wholistic understanding of what human sexuality IS and what it is for. Contraception innately violates that fundamental vision of sexual intimacy. Your protestations of superior moral theological knowledge fly in the face of the fact that virtually every theologian alive today who openly dissents from catholic teaching in the matter is also unfaithful in OTHER (and even more serious) matters. Furthermore, I’ve seen in my own life the outcome of rebellion in the form of broken and hurting family members who took your path. I’ve seen on a global basis the way in which contraception fundamentally alters human society (not one country on earth in which contraception is both morally respectable and widely available/affordable has a total fertility rate above replacement level. Not one).

Your arguments carried some intellectual weight in the 1960’s when the empirical evidence wasn’t so obvious and many were lead astray to ruin. Those of us who survived aren’t going to blunder down that same barren road. No thanks.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Oh, I certainly agree with you that the Onan story is not enough by itself to illustrate that contraception is forbidden under all circumstances. That’s not what the bible is for. It’s not a catechism, it’s a story of God revealing Himself to His people.

The theology and catechesis comes from the church. The same church Christ established and granted authority to teach in his name and the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard against false teaching. That authority has pointed out that the Onan story illustrates the immorality of contraception, not that the Onan story defines the teaching on contraception.

The teaching itself comes from a wholistic understanding of what human sexuality IS and what it is for. Contraception innately violates that fundamental vision of sexual intimacy. Your protestations of superior moral theological knowledge fly in the face of the fact that virtually every theologian alive today who openly dissents from catholic teaching in the matter is also unfaithful in OTHER (and even more serious) matters. Furthermore, I’ve seen in my own life the outcome of rebellion in the form of broken and hurting family members who took your path. ** I’ve seen on a global basis the way in which contraception fundamentally alters human society (not one country on earth in which contraception is both morally respectable and widely available/affordable has a total fertility rate above replacement level. Not one)**.

Your arguments carried some intellectual weight in the 1960’s when the empirical evidence wasn’t so obvious and many were lead astray to ruin. Those of us who survived aren’t going to blunder down that same barren road. No thanks.

Interesting…

A systematic review of European fertility rates came to the result that they do not seem to decrease significantly by availability of contraception.[13]

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
The contraception has to be a reason for all the bad stuff.
If it can not be in this case here I am sure it’s going to be for the following statement coming from that page:

It pointed out that significant factors for low fertility rates include instability of modern partnerships and value changes.[13]

… and I agree. The contraception is intrinsically evil.

My point is that the conception avoidance by using condoms or any other means with good intentions - unselfish love giving and under good circumstances - within marriage is morally different object. How do we resolve the contradiction mentioned my previous post above your last post?

The only way is, to say that the object by definition includes bad intentions and/or bad circumstances.
Therefore an intrinsically evil act by definition includes …

Once the ‘bad stuff’ is unpacked/disassociated from the object then we are talking about different moral object, we get self-defence, amputation, …

 

[manualman]

Interesting…

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
The contraception has to be a reason for all the bad stuff.
If it can not be in this case here I am sure it’s going to be for the following statement coming from that page:

Oh yes, I’ve read such research before. It’s the logical outcome of circular reasoning. My computer doesn’t get along with Wikipedia at the moment (so I haven’t read your link, but let’s see how I do below).

Such researchers start with the unexamined assumption that contraception has physical effects (temporary sterility) but no spiritual effects. Then they go on to examine correlations between desired number of children and actual number of children. Then they conclude that it isn’t contraception that results in fewer children, but a change in the number of children actually desired by couples. It just happens to be a coincidence that couples in contraceptive cultures rarely desire more than two children (with the result that actual TFR ends up around 1.6 after unexpected sterility, divorce and those desiring no kids are factored in). But it’s a total coincidence. We know it because, well we just do.

The UN demographers have in their most recent long term population projection finally admitted that it cannot be assumed anymore that the developed world will return soon to a replacement level of 2.1 TFR. They still think on scant evidence that Europe will bounce back up to around 1.9 or so, but in reality since the most recent projection came out the USA has been sinking down to near European levels rather than them coming up towards ours. But the contraception culture is pure coincidence. Sure.

I know that’s bunkum just from my own life and that of NFP couples in my sphere of friends. Among NFP folk, there are three kinds of kids:

1. Planned
2. Oops
3. Oh what the heck.

Contraceptors only have two kinds of kids, 1 and 2 above. Nobody ever says “the bathroom is too far to go to get that little packet. Let’s just have another baby.”

NFP every month pushes your face in your allegedly serious reason to avoid pregnancy and asks “Oh yeah? NOW how serious is that reason?” Contraception asks you to pop a pill or tear a packet open and costs less than most people spend on candy. It retains none of the self-regulating mechanisms God built into humanity that NFP respects and sustains. No surprise that on it many more people perpetually delude themselves into thinking they must have no more children.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Oh yes, I’ve read such research before. It’s the logical outcome of circular reasoning. My computer doesn’t get along with Wikipedia at the moment (so I haven’t read your link, but let’s see how I do below).

Such researchers start with the unexamined assumption that contraception has physical effects (temporary sterility) but no spiritual effects. Then they go on to examine correlations between desired number of children and actual number of children. Then they conclude that it isn’t contraception that results in fewer children, but a change in the number of children actually desired by couples. It just happens to be a coincidence that couples in contraceptive cultures rarely desire more than two children (with the result that actual TFR ends up around 1.6 after unexpected sterility, divorce and those desiring no kids are factored in). But it’s a total coincidence. We know it because, well we just do.

The UN demographers have in their most recent long term population projection finally admitted that it cannot be assumed anymore that the developed world will return soon to a replacement level of 2.1 TFR. They still think on scant evidence that Europe will bounce back up to around 1.9 or so, but in reality since the most recent projection came out the USA has been sinking down to near European levels rather than them coming up towards ours. But the contraception culture is pure coincidence. Sure.

I know that’s bunkum just from my own life and that of NFP couples in my sphere of friends. Among NFP folk, there are three kinds of kids:

1. Planned
2. Oops
3. Oh what the heck.

Contraceptors only have two kinds of kids, 1 and 2 above. Nobody ever says “the bathroom is too far to go to get that little packet. Let’s just have another baby.”

NFP every month pushes your face in your allegedly serious reason to avoid pregnancy and asks “Oh yeah? NOW how serious is that reason?” Contraception asks you to pop a pill or tear a packet open and costs less than most people spend on candy. It retains none of the self-regulating mechanisms God built into humanity that NFP respects and sustains. No surprise that on it many more people perpetually delude themselves into thinking they must have no more children.

Agreed, the contraception is not good.
It’s between the married couple and God how many children they will aim for.
This question is independent from the conception avoidance type that’s being used by the couple.

 

[glendab]

hello Jaa.

The question is how come he made it into the Old Testament?
The logical conclusion is it’s not because of the way how he contracepted but bigger picture - what and why.

If it was only the way of contraception then the introduction to the story, setup of the story would not be part of the Old Testament.

Jaa, God is the Author of our Scriptures. It isn’t a collection of dry morality plays and tales to keep folks in line. It is the Word of God. It alive and sharper than any two-edged sword. Men do as it says and believe it as true. So, why did the story of Onan as you say, make it into the Bible? Because it shows something extremely important. There is no Editorial Board for the Scriptures and it isn’t modified to suit the current pop culture from time to time. Perhaps you should try reading a different Bible for a while, one that doesn’t contain offensive stories about what God thinks about men who contracept.

Glenda

 

[LongingSoul]

The natural law stands on the human nature - capability to reason. That includes simple logic - AND, OR, IF… THEN…, NOR, … statements. Sometimes the reasoning can get more complicated but …

… it’s God’s law written upon our hearts. It’s supposed to be the same for everybody. It can not be and it’s not supposed to be complicated and confusing so much that most of the people would not understand it.

The irony of truth is that it is most evident to the purest of heart and simpliest of souls. That is our goal.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. Mat 18 1/5

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. Mat 11:25/26

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.” Luke 10 22/24

No, I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the teaching, how the morality of the act was determined. I ask straightforward questions and the answers are not satisfactory.

Perhaps it is a case of ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see’?

There is no Church’s teaching allowing conception avoidance by using condoms for married couples therefore the double standard question is still unanswered. How is this acceptable?

Condoms as contraception are illicit because the intention is to stop the natural dialogue normal to intercourse and create a utilitarian act of the gift of intercourse.

Now another example of the natural law - a determination of the morality of an act using human nature - capability to reason, common sense.
There are three things being used to determine morality of an act - object, intentions, circumstances. All three of them are supposed to be good or in case of the object it has to be at least morally neutral.

Simple logic and common sense say that murder can be murder only when there is premeditated intention to kill or/and there are bad circumstances, for example a person is in such a state of mind that it cannot resist an impulse to kill. The intention to kill can differentiate between murder and let’s say an accidental killing during a self-defense. This applies not only to our earthly courts but it’s reasonable to think that God who sees into our hearts would apply similar point of view.
It appears that this is what’s written upon our hearts. Would you agree?

Simple logic and common sense say that contraception can be contraception only when there is premeditated intention to kill the fertility of the union. The intention to contracept can differentiate between contraception and lets say, an incidental killing of fertility for health reasons (self defense). This applies not only in our earthly medical ethics but it’s reasonable to think that God who sees into our hearts would apply similar point of view.
It appears that this is what’s written upon our hearts. Would you agree?

I certainly agree. The Church by dent of the principle of double effect, allows for an incidental affect on fertility when the action is directly addressing a serious health issue.

It is always and everytime contraception if the affect of murdering the fertility is intentional and deliberate for the sake of sterile sex.

Now, how this can be reconciled with the CCC 1756?
“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

What do you think? Why the sudden switch to the object? There is no way to say a murder is a murder without the intentions and circumstances. That’s logically impossible.

I for the life of me don’t see any confusion here. Some sins by their nature are intrinsically evil. They come from a place of grave disorder in the human heart that offends and wounds basic charity. Now a persons culpability is Gods prerogative, but the sin always and everytime has a mortally wounding effect on his charity for God and his neighbour.

 

[JimG]

For an in depth look at the actual effects of what contraception has wrought on society, read “Adam and Eve After the Pill–Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution.”

 

[Jaaanosik]

LongingSoul,
I like your posts and I appreciate them, thanks!

…
Condoms as contraception are illicit because the intention is to stop the natural dialogue normal to intercourse and create a utilitarian act of the gift of intercourse.

Simple logic and common sense say that contraception can be contraception only when there is premeditated intention to kill the fertility of the union. The intention to contracept can differentiate between contraception and lets say, an incidental killing of fertility for health reasons (self defense). This applies not only in our earthly medical ethics but it’s reasonable to think that God who sees into our hearts would apply similar point of view.
It appears that this is what’s written upon our hearts. Would you agree?

I disagree. Murder is a killing of a person.
The fertility of the union is an attribute. There is nothing wrong with taking away an attribute.
The face expressions and body gestures are attributes of the natural face to face conversation. This attributes are being taken away (‘killed’) by phone conversation. A couple is left with a ‘sterile’ phone call.

I certainly agree. The Church by dent of the principle of double effect, allows for an incidental affect on fertility when the action is directly addressing a serious health issue.

This is not a case for condoms. You will not find any teaching saying condoms are OK for married couples due to health issues. The only option is abstinence.

It is always and everytime contraception if the affect of murdering the fertility is intentional and deliberate for the sake of sterile sex.

As mentioned above this is not a ‘murder’.

I for the life of me don’t see any confusion here. Some sins by their nature are intrinsically evil. They come from a place of grave disorder in the human heart that offends and wounds basic charity. Now a persons culpability is Gods prerogative, but the sin always and everytime has a mortally wounding effect on his charity for God and his neighbour.

There is no such a thing as a moral object without some kind of link to the intentions and/or circumstances.

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul,
I like your posts and I appreciate them, thanks!

I disagree. Murder is a killing of a person.
The fertility of the union is an attribute. There is nothing wrong with taking away an attribute.
The face expressions and body gestures are attributes of the natural face to face conversation. This attributes are being taken away (‘killed’) by phone conversation. A couple is left with a ‘sterile’ phone call.

Facial expressions and gestures are not requisite for intercourse of conversation. What is requisite is the sharing of words. The thoughts, the ideas, the opinions all expressed by words. Could be spoken words, written words, sign language, morse code, smoke signals. Something vital is exchanged that makes the meeting a conversation. If people met and banged their heads together or something rather than impart words, that is not a conversation. That is a sterile act.

Likewise, fertility only seems like an optional attribute of intercourse since the advent of contraception which has artificially divorced the sexual instinct from the calling of all living things to procreate. (The philosophy of meaningless pleasure is what drives the drugs epidemic also.) There is a deep call within males and females for union, based on their intrinsic capacity to create. That instinct drives their attraction. You could say the relationship of the couple was an optional attribute of the sexual drive since other living things don’t value relationship, however in human beings, there is also a deep call to communion as an expression of their hopes for eternal life in heaven. That makes the relationship of lifelong commitment also essential in intercourse for human beings. Two elements, always essential… procreative and unitive. Both affirm life and the creative call within males and females.

There is no such a thing as a moral object without some kind of link to the intentions and/or circumstances.

You are trying to understand the principles from a position of determined relativity and it isn’t gong to help you ever understand. There are some absolute Truths and some things are intrinsically sinful.

 

[LongingSoul]

You are trying to understand the principles from a position of determined relativity and it isn’t gong to help you ever understand. There are some absolute Truths and some things are intrinsically sinful.

I meant to say intrinsically ‘evil’.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Facial expressions and gestures are not requisite for intercourse of conversation. What is requisite is the sharing of words. The thoughts, the ideas, the opinions all expressed by words. Could be spoken words, written words, sign language, morse code, smoke signals. Something vital is exchanged that makes the meeting a conversation. If people met and banged their heads together or something rather than impart words, that is not a conversation. That is a sterile act.

Likewise, fertility only seems like an optional attribute of intercourse since the advent of contraception which has artificially divorced the sexual instinct from the calling of all living things to procreate. (The philosophy of meaningless pleasure is what drives the drugs epidemic also.) There is a deep call within males and females for union, based on their intrinsic capacity to create. That instinct drives their attraction. You could say the relationship of the couple was an optional attribute of the sexual drive since other living things don’t value relationship, however in human beings, there is also a deep call to communion as an expression of their hopes for eternal life in heaven. That makes the relationship of lifelong commitment also essential in intercourse for human beings. Two elements, always essential… procreative and unitive. Both affirm life and the creative call within males and females.

You also said: “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.*”
What is this divine meaning and how it’s related to a specific way of having sex?

You are trying to understand the principles from a position of determined relativity and it isn’t gong to help you ever understand. There are some absolute Truths and some things are intrinsically sinful.

I gave you an example showing that it’s impossible to determine morality of an act on the object alone.
An intrinsically evil act has to have some sort of link to the intentions and the circumstances. The intrinsically evil act includes/assumes bad intentions and/or bad circumstances by definition.

 

[LongingSoul]

You also said: “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.”
What is this divine meaning and how it’s related to a specific way of having sex?

Marriage is a human institution and it existed prior to and separate from religious cultures. The instinct to not limit human actions to the desires of the flesh and the emotions… but to defer those to a promise to submit to lifelong and faithful relationship to another (or others in the case of polygamous cultures)… has roots in man’s identity with the species and our part in propogating it.

With the coming of Christs light and our new relationship with God and each other, marriage was recognised as a communion that made a man and a woman one again in the way of the heavenly life before God took a rib from His creation and made man and woman. The desire to procreate is a natural force throughout the living world. The desire to be whole before God as His perfect creation is a consequence of the light of Christ.

What contraception seeks to achieve is to silence the two ‘voices’ that are calling each other… and use their gift outside of the bonds of Christlike love. Like inviting guests to your house, opening the door to take their gifts and slamming the door in the faces. We are animal matter but our souls long for God and eternal life. We cannot live our two natures separately. They are all part of us and inseparable in this life.

I gave you an example showing that it’s impossible to determine morality of an act on the object alone.
An intrinsically evil act has to have some sort of link to the intentions and the circumstances. The intrinsically evil act includes/assumes bad intentions and/or bad circumstances by definition.

If the object is contraception, then that is intrinsically evil. There are no circumstances or intentions that can make contraception good. The intentions and circumstances that are used to justify the choice to do evil, can mitigate the sin of the person making the choice… but they can never make contraception good. Evil existed prior to sin. Sin did not create evil. Sin is mans choice to do evil.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Marriage is a human institution and it existed prior to and separate from religious cultures. The instinct to not limit human actions to the desires of the flesh and the emotions… but to defer those to a promise to submit to lifelong and faithful relationship to another (or others in the case of polygamous cultures)… has roots in man’s identity with the species and our part in propogating it.

With the coming of Christs light and our new relationship with God and each other, marriage was recognised as a communion that made a man and a woman one again in the way of the heavenly life before God took a rib from His creation and made man and woman. The desire to procreate is a natural force throughout the living world. The desire to be whole before God as His perfect creation is a consequence of the light of Christ.

What contraception seeks to achieve is to silence the two ‘voices’ that are calling each other… and use their gift outside of the bonds of Christlike love. Like inviting guests to your house, opening the door to take their gifts and slamming the door in the faces. We are animal matter but our souls long for God and eternal life. We cannot live our two natures separately. They are all part of us and inseparable in this life.

I agree with everything assuming desire to procreate is a desire to have children and not a desire to have a sex in a specific way and the contraception is not the same as the conception avoidance.

If the object is contraception, then that is intrinsically evil. There are no circumstances or intentions that can make contraception good. The intentions and circumstances that are used to justify the choice to do evil, can mitigate the sin of the person making the choice… but they can never make contraception good. Evil existed prior to sin. Sin did not create evil. Sin is mans choice to do evil.

As mentioned above the contraception is different than the conception avoidance.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with everything assuming desire to procreate is a desire to have children and not a desire to have a sex in a specific way and the contraception is not the same as the conception avoidance.

Procreation by virtue of the Latin ‘pro’ indicates ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’ or ‘ordered to’ creation. More than the desire for children, it indicates an attitude of unconditional openness to life. It rejects any conditions imposed on the sexual act that close it to the possibility of life.

As mentioned above the contraception is different than the conception avoidance.

Yes contraception in the act of imposing conditions on intercourse that close it to the possibility of life.

 

[ellam27]

I just want to say that in my marriage with my husband I have not been on birth control. However, when I was a teenager I was put on birth control because I have a condition that makes it so I rarely get periods (like once a year). This is very bad for a woman’s body. I took it for the soul purpose of getting my period. However I agree with what the priests say about it being a sexual bulemia when used to protect from having children; that is a great way to put it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Procreation by virtue of the Latin ‘pro’ indicates ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’ or ‘ordered to’ creation. More than the desire for children, it indicates an attitude of unconditional openness to life. It rejects any conditions imposed on the sexual act that close it to the possibility of life.

Yes contraception in the act of imposing conditions on intercourse that close it to the possibility of life.

Well, let me ask you a question.
Telling the truth is an intrinsically good moral object.
Is it possible to harm someone by telling the truth with bad intentions and under bad circumstances?
Like to bring something from the past, a truth, though long forgotten with an intention to harm a person. Is it a moral act?

If you say it’s immoral to do so, then how does it correlate with CCC 1756?
It’s OK to dismiss intentions and circumstances with intrinsically evil moral object.
It should be OK to dismiss intentions and circumstances with intrinsically good moral object. It means telling the truth should be morally OK all the time.
Is it like that or we have a double standard of dismissing intentions and circumstances?

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, let me ask you a question.
Telling the truth is an intrinsically good moral object.
Is it possible to harm someone by telling the truth with bad intentions and under bad circumstances?
Like to bring something from the past, a truth, though long forgotten with an intention to harm a person. Is it a moral act?

If you say it’s immoral to do so, then how does it correlate with CCC 1756?
It’s OK to dismiss intentions and circumstances with intrinsically evil moral object.
It should be OK to dismiss intentions and circumstances with intrinsically good moral object. It means telling the truth should be morally OK all the time.
Is it like that or we have a double standard of dismissing intentions and circumstances?

Well the object in your example would be ‘honesty’. ‘Telling the truth’ is an act that either serves honesty which is a virtue arising from charity… or serves some other object that wounds charity. If someone in the US defense department ‘tells a truth’ to a Russian spy or an ISIS militant… that’s called treason… not honesty for example.

So if the evil object is ‘contraception’… the act of taking a pill or using a condom (as per Pope BXVI’s comment regarding male prostitutes) serves either the primary object of contraception (always evil) or the primary object of a health issue.