What can I say to these people?

[nobody]

“contraception only woeks when GOD allows it to work. To say it’s wrong or right is up to God because, he is in control. The most effective crontraceptive is only 98% and that is if it doesn’t break, come off or have a hole in it. please correct me if I’m wrong but if GOD wants you to jave a baby it’s GOING to happen. -Z-”

These people are saying well it doesn’t matter if I use contraception because if God wants me to have a child he will.

What can I say to refute thsi arguement?

I didn’t read through all the replies, so maybe this kind of rsponse has already been suggested:

“Well, if I fire a gun in your direction, I might miss. If God wants you to live, He will make sure the bullet misses, because He is in control, right? If God wants you to live, you will. Want to try it?”

Okay, the “want to try it?” might be interpreted as a threat, so if you don’t know these people well enough for them to know you are not serious, you probably don’t want to add that part.

Peace.

 

[Vincent1560]

mark a:

I see your points but do not agree with them. My quoting Catholic scources would fall on deaf ears.

Nearly all such questions have been previously addressed by the Church. Some early writings get right down to the nitty-gritty. For example, there are writings that address whether a man or woman can demand payment of the “marital debt” during menstration.

But for myself, it is good to know that the Church throughout history has examined these sexual issues. Can you imagine how difficult it must be for a young couple with raging hormones to submit to a Johnny-come-lately church authority?

The Church is here to address sexual issues as they develope. And as they develope, they become less about sex and more about life. These issues will continue to evolve. And the Church will be there. And when the issues are tough, the Church will be led by the Holy Spirit to the stricter, least popular position.

I am glad you can see where I am coming from, and I respect your position. I guess it all comes back to papal infallbility, as most of these discussions tend to do. God Bless.

 

[mark_a]

Vincent1560:

I am glad you can see where I am coming from, and I respect your position. I guess it all comes back to papal infallbility, as most of these discussions tend to do. God Bless.

Just a quick point- It comes down to authority. The Pope gets his infalliblity from the Church, and she gets her authority from. . . . .

 

[John_Taylor]

just a note…

…that “unnatural contraceptive acts” are “intrinsically evil” does not rely on the Authority of the Catholic Church…such is knowable to man through the use of reason alone from a consideration of the Creator’s design for human sexuality…from “the Law written in the heart” of man…if the words of St Paul in Romans mean anything then non-Catholics will be without excuse for “exchanging natural relations” for unnatural ones.

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[allhers]

Bob_Bobber0:

How do I address the question that “if” a man and woman are contracepting for legit reasons, i.e. they cannot possible raise kids do to some legit problem. why is it wrong to physically contracept.

Again it must be explained in reasons that do not make any reference to the teaching of the church because they do not buy it, and must be applicable.

Thanks for help guys.

If they don’t care about His teachings then it really doesn’t matter what you say, all you can do is keep telling them the truth, the Church hands on His teachings faithfully and it does matter what you choose to do, your very soul depends on your choices. They sound like people who believe that we are predestined one way or the other, when that isn’t a Church teaching either, God wills us all to be saved, but it’s still our choice. (free will) They obviously don’t care about His teachings. We can only pray for them and tell them the truth. A lot of people on here have given you a lot of good things to consider also. In the meantime it’s the babies that are giving their lives so that other’s can be selfish.

 

[Vincent1560]

John Taylor:

just a note…

…that “unnatural contraceptive acts” are “intrinsically evil” does not rely on the Authority of the Catholic Church…such is knowable to man through the use of reason alone from a consideration of the Creator’s design for human sexuality…from “the Law written in the heart” of man…if the words of St Paul in Romans mean anything then non-Catholics will be without excuse for “exchanging natural relations” for unnatural ones.

Keep the Faith
jmt

If it relies on reason alone please enlighten, I am genuinely interested in such an explanation. And you need to do more than quote Paul out of context. Lets look at the whole of the relevant passage in Romans 1.

“26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

It is very clear that Paul is using unnatural to describe the practice of homosexuality and I cannot for the life of me understand people and churches who supposedly believe in the bible, yet think homosexuality is not a sin. However contraception in any form is not discussed in this passage and it is just your opinion that Paul would agree with it being unnatural, in the sense he is using in Romans. If you have another argument I would of course be interested in hearing it.

 

[mark_a]

Vincent1560:

If it relies on reason alone please enlighten, I am genuinely interested in such an explanation.

Hello again.

This is a simplistic attempt “by reason alone”.

Do you remember the actual situation when, as a child, you learned about:

• oral contraceptives?
• condoms?
• abortion?

I remember being totally unaware of sex, but I do remember the actual situation where I learned about oral contraceptives and abortion, and I remember being shocked.

The point being that I was not yet mentally “in the culture”. I had no prejudice one way or the other. But I was shocked.

 

[John_Taylor]

(jmt)…that “unnatural contraceptive acts” are “intrinsically evil” does not rely on the Authority of the Catholic Church…such is knowable to man through the use of reason alone from a consideration of the Creator’s design for human sexuality…from “the Law written in the heart” of man…if the words of St Paul in Romans mean anything then non-Catholics will be without excuse for “exchanging natural relations” for unnatural ones.

(Vincent) If it relies on reason alone please enlighten, I am genuinely interested in such an explanation.

(jmt) From a reflection of who we are as creatures in relation to our Creator we know that we are not our own, rather we are created for His purposes, not for our purposes. Any purpose we pursue for ourselves must be in harmony with His purposes for us - for He is the greater, indeed the Greatest Good, Who comes before any other good we might desire…therefore, anything we might desire, and indeed there is much good He has given us to desire, must be subordinated to His Purposes for us as a whole (the whole of humanity) for we know that His Will for us is for His Glorification and our happiness.

Reflecting upon our sexuality we note that it gives us the good of pleasure - but this good cannot be the ultimate purpose for sex because we know from the experience of mankind that sex can be used to derive pleasure for one at the expense of another to the unhappiness of the one “being used” and ultimately, even to the unhappiness of “the user” for they act not in harmony with God’s Will. Anyone with experience in the work of establishing and maintaining an intimate sexual relationship know that pleasure alone does not bring them happiness and will not sustain the relationship. From this alone we can understand that the pleasure of sex is secondary to the purpose of sex.

Reflecting on the nature of sex itself (as God has designed it) we know and cannot deny that its primary purpose is for procreation. The pleasure and the intimacy it fosters between husband and wife is secondary to this purpose. Therefore, the good we seek from sex (pleasure and intimacy) must be subordinated to the primary purpose for which God designed our sexuality to fulfill: the creation of other human souls for His Glory and their happiness.

Shall we then subordinate the primary to the secondary? Shall we separate what God has joined? Shall we close God out in the fulfillment of His purposes so that we might pursue our own? We know it to be a disordered act in the human person who seeks the pleasure of eating food divorced from the primary purpose of eating food - which is for the nourishment and health of the body. The glutton is at war against right reason to the detriment of his own health.

Like the glutton, the man who seeks the pleasure of sex divorced from the primary purpose of sex is engaged in a disordered act. It’s only because the pleasure of sex is so great that men are inclined to not see this.

(continued)

 

[John_Taylor]

(Vincent) **And you need to do more than quote Paul out of context. Lets look at the whole of the relevant passage in Romans 1:.

“26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”

It is very clear that Paul is using unnatural to describe the practice of homosexuality and I cannot for the life of me understand people and churches who supposedly believe in the bible, yet think homosexuality is not a sin.**

(jmt) Think…why are homosexual acts UNNATURAL? If the primary purpose of sex can be subordinated to the secondary purpose - such that the pleasure of sex can be pursued at the expense of it’s procreative purpose - then why are acts of sodomy displeasing to the Creator? Are you not seeing as “unnatural” in the homosexual act that which I am saying God sees as “unnatural” in the contraceptive act? which is in essence, the willful sterilization of a conjugal act for the sake of pleasure? or perhaps for the sake of intimacy?

Why is such pleasure and intimacy - divorced from procreation - “okay” for heterosexuals to pursue but not homosexuals? Will you say, “because God has revealed His displeasure of it in the Bible in the case of homosexuality but not in the case of heterosexuals?” Keep in mind, I referred us to St Paul’s words, not because you and I as believers in God’s Word accept his testimony, but rather to show you that even those who are not believers are responsible before God to KNOW that homosexual acts are unnatural. Even if they are ignorant of God’s Revelations to mankind through Jesus Christ they are still culpable. It follows that it’s not faith that teaches sodomy is “unnatural” but rather reason and “the law written in the heart” of man. So ask an unbeliever who happens to like same sex acts, who may be just as monogamous in their homosexual relationship as any heterosexual Christian couple, “how is it that you can’t see that sodomy is unnatural” and he will gladly point out the hypocrisy of Christians engaged in “serial marriages” and “contraceptive sex”. If sodomy (whether oral or anal) is okay with God for heterosexuals then it’s okay with God for homosexuals - after all, “what’s the difference”?

(Vincent) However contraception in any form is not discussed in this passage and it is just your opinion that Paul would agree with it being unnatural, in the sense he is using in Romans. If you have another argument I would of course be interested in hearing it.

(jmt) In what sense do you think placing a piece of latex or lamb’s skin between a husband and his wife - for the purpose of “wasting seed” (Genesis 38:9-10) - is “natural”???

Keep the Faith
jmt