What 10 Priests Say About Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some brief points:
  1. I agree that sex should only take place within marriage (and no, I do not think homosexual marriage is marriage, because marriage is about uniting the sexes, in recognition of their sexual complementarity)
  2. Procreation is central to the purpose of marriage. The procreative potential between a man and a woman is what gives meaning to their sexual relationship. If men and woman didn’t procreate through sex, sex would be no more meaningful than hand shaking.
  3. We should expect married couples to procreate. Procreation is the reason that their relationship is given special recognition, and the reason couples should be monogamous with the mother or father of their children.
  4. Procreation is vital for continuing our societies, and therefore, a couple’s procreative duty is to society, to continue to populate their nation, and provide replacement for themselves.
  5. It is important that children are given adequate resources, time, and healthy relationships with their parents so they are prepared as well as possible to take their place in their nation as responsible adults and replace those adults who have aged.
  6. A proper balance must be achieved between the number of children a couple has, and the number they can best care for. If they have too few children, we could face a population crisis. If they have too many, their children may not receive the resources their need to achieve their potential as adults.
  7. Sex should be used first, for procreation. If a couple chooses not to procreate for no reason other than convenience, they have rendered their sexual union meaningless, because it has only satisfied their own pleasure, and not its meaningful purpose of reproduction.
  8. Sex does not just provide the purpose of reproduction, it bonds a husband and wife together emotionally and mentally. As long as a couple is fulfilling their duty to procreate, they do no wrong by having sex in between pregnancies that does not result in pregnancy. A marriage isn’t just for generating children, it is for raising children. When a husband and wife have a strong relationship, they can better raise their children and have healthier relationships with their children than if their relationship was colder or more emotionally distant.
 
LongingSoul said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you doing?
When you are talking about honesty you are introducing intentions and circumstances.
Telling the truth to the Russian spy … that’s linking of intentions and circumstances to the moral object.
Please, don’t commit a logical fallacy.

So, does the moral object include intentions and circumstances or not?
 
Thinking10 said:
Some brief points:
  1. I agree that sex should only take place within marriage (and no, I do not think homosexual marriage is marriage, because marriage is about uniting the sexes, in recognition of their sexual complementarity)
  2. Procreation is central to the purpose of marriage. The procreative potential between a man and a woman is what gives meaning to their sexual relationship. If men and woman didn’t procreate through sex, sex would be no more meaningful than hand shaking.
  3. We should expect married couples to procreate. Procreation is the reason that their relationship is given special recognition, and the reason couples should be monogamous with the mother or father of their children.
  4. Procreation is vital for continuing our societies, and therefore, a couple’s procreative duty is to society, to continue to populate their nation, and provide replacement for themselves.
  5. It is important that children are given adequate resources, time, and healthy relationships with their parents so they are prepared as well as possible to take their place in their nation as responsible adults and replace those adults who have aged.
  6. A proper balance must be achieved between the number of children a couple has, and the number they can best care for. If they have too few children, we could face a population crisis. If they have too many, their children may not receive the resources their need to achieve their potential as adults.
  7. Sex should be used first, for procreation. If a couple chooses not to procreate for no reason other than convenience, they have rendered their sexual union meaningless, because it has only satisfied their own pleasure, and not its meaningful purpose of reproduction.
  8. Sex does not just provide the purpose of reproduction, it bonds a husband and wife together emotionally and mentally. As long as a couple is fulfilling their duty to procreate, they do no wrong by having sex in between pregnancies that does not result in pregnancy. A marriage isn’t just for generating children, it is for raising children. When a husband and wife have a strong relationship, they can better raise their children and have healthier relationships with their children than if their relationship was colder or more emotionally distant.
Click to expand...
This is well thought out post, it is as good description of the reality as it gets!!!
 
Jaaanosik said:
What are you doing?
When you are talking about honesty you are introducing intentions and circumstances.
Telling the truth to the Russian spy … that’s linking of intentions and circumstances to the moral object.
Please, don’t commit a logical fallacy.

So, does the moral object include intentions and circumstances or not?
Click to expand...
I am officially tired of following your reasoning down rabbit holes I’m afraid. Some things like contraception, are intrinsically evil. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make them good. Other things like the life of a human are good by their very nature, a right and inviolable. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make human life extinguishable.

These realities point to the bonds of charity that are essential to humanity and trump the illusion of individualism.
 
Thinking10 said:
Self defense?
Click to expand...
In self defense there is no intention to take the life of another. It is the incidental result of defending your own life. Likewise, using a hormone to treat an illness that incidentally causes sterility is not an intention to cause sterility.
 
LongingSoul said:
In self defense there is no intention to take the life of another. It is the incidental result of defending your own life. Likewise, using a hormone to treat an illness that incidentally causes sterility is not an intention to cause sterility.
Click to expand...
Utilizing a weapon against an attacker can be done with intention to kill, if that is what must be done to save your own life.

I don’t agree with hormonal birth control or sterilization either unless there is a serious medical necessity to do so. I don’t agree with intentionally causing sterility, whether it is temporary or permanent, only for purposes of avoiding pregnancy.
 
Thinking10 said:
Utilizing a weapon against an attacker can be done with intention to kill, if that is what must be done to save your own life.

I don’t agree with hormonal birth control or sterilization either unless there is a serious medical necessity to do so. I don’t agree with intentionally causing sterility, whether it is temporary or permanent, only for purposes of avoiding pregnancy.
Click to expand...
No, the ‘intention to kill’ exceeds the limits of legitimate defense. There are ethical constraints placed on governments regarding weapons of defense to ensure killing is the last resort in solving disputes. Weapons of mass destruction for example are evil. In war, the intention must be to restore peace and wholeness to the region… not to conquere or eliminate life. The only legitimate purpose of war is to heal the wound within the body of that region.
 
Hello Longing.
LongingSoul said:
I am officially tired of following your reasoning down rabbit holes I’m afraid. Some things like contraception, are intrinsically evil. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make them good. Other things like the life of a human are good by their very nature, a right and inviolable. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make human life extinguishable.

These realities point to the bonds of charity that are essential to humanity and trump the illusion of individualism.
Click to expand...
Bravo! :clapping: Yippie! :extrahappy: You got it girl. He wants his cake and gets to eat it too. 🍰 But as for me and my household, we serve the Lord.

Glenda
 
LongingSoul said:
I am officially tired of following your reasoning down rabbit holes I’m afraid. Some things like contraception, are intrinsically evil. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make them good. Other things like the life of a human are good by their very nature, a right and inviolable. Nothing including intentions and circumstance can make human life extinguishable.

These realities point to the bonds of charity that are essential to humanity and trump the illusion of individualism.
Click to expand...
Thanks anyway…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top