What is the problem with contraception?

[Aloysium]

Actually it’s you who should rethink this. Tyrion’s description has its merits. It’s a good description of the reality.

A leader/follower identification of people depends on areas.
A leader in one field can be a follower in another field. The fact remains; there are leaders and there are followers.

There are many factors that contribute to who is who. All go back to upbringing of a person and education.
There is a tendency. Some leaders in their subject think they can be leaders in everything. That’s their fault though, only a true polyhistor can be leader in multiple fields.

Most of the Catholics were brought up in environments where they were taught to listen to a priest in regards to the faith and morals. There is a minority of those who were taught to think and analyze this subjects. That’s a fact.

actually it’s not a good description of reality;
but it does illustrate arrogance and elitism
most certainly not love and compassion

we have talents, which give us a duty and responsibility to use them in accordance to God’s will: loving Him and our neighbor
in this light, the leader is the servant, as made clear in scripture

this, sir is reality

do you as well believe that ppl are afraid of freedom; ppl are ultimately afraid of God would be my take on it (this is not unwise - being one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit)

I would suggest that those who see others as fearful followers,
that are the ones who are afraid of freedom, but fighting their own desire to submit.
Their fears are projected out into a vague humanity;
these projected illusions of their own psyche are of gullible masses, out there.
But not themselves; this self-proclaimed advocate of freedom is not one of them.
He is a leader to himself, a thinker who analyzes things:

• a leader who, if he has not already, will eventually lead himself astray.

I would assert that it is not the person who follows the Church teachings that does not think, but rather those that have unthinkingly accepted the nonreligious, even anti-religious nonsense that spews forth in modern culture.

 

[atheistgirl]

If there is at least one Catholic whose well informed conscience tells him that contraception is not causing him a spiritual harm then your statement:

• it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.*
  is false.

There’s way more than one.

I’ve read various reports suggesting as much as 97% of Catholics have used some form of contraception and 65% and more regularly use contraception.

Sarah x

 

[St_Francis]

Here is a link to a short article explaining the deficiencies of that statistic, for which the Washington Post, not known for a bias towards Catholicism, fact checker handed out 2 Pinocchios.

Why? Because the numbers refer to women who identify themselves as Catholic, **who have had sex if only once, **and who “used birth control,” if only because the other participant, who may or may not have been Catholic, used a condom.

So, of women who call themselves Catholic between the ages of 15 and 44 *who have even only once had sex, ***98% have, *if only once, *participated in a sexual act in which one of the two participants, who may not both have been Catholic, used some form of abc. .

And of course there is the ultimate issue, and that is that 100% of Catholics alive now have sinned in some way. Does that mean that Catholicism is wrong? No more than the fact that rapes still occur among the general population means that rape is all right.**

 

[St_Francis]

There’s way more than one.

I’ve read various reports suggesting as much as 97% of Catholics have used some form of contraception and 65% and more regularly use contraception.

Sarah x

Here is a link to a short article explaining the deficiencies of that statistic, for which the Washington Post, not known for a bias towards Catholicism, fact checker handed out 2 Pinocchios.

Why? Because the numbers refer to women who identify themselves as Catholic, **who have had sex if only once, **and who “used birth control,” if only because the other participant, who may or may not have been Catholic, used a condom.

So, of women who call themselves Catholic between the ages of 15 and 44 *who have even only once had sex, ***98% have, *if only once, *participated in a sexual act in which one of the two participants, who may not both have been Catholic, used some form of abc. .

And of course there is the ultimate issue, and that is that 100% of Catholics alive now have sinned in some way. Does that mean that Catholicism is wrong? No more than the fact that rapes still occur among the general population means that rape is all right.**

 

[St_Francis]

If there is at least one Catholic whose well informed conscience tells him that contraception is not causing him a spiritual harm then your statement:

• it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.*
  is false.
  I know a few Catholics like that therefore your statement is false.

I am not even talking about non-Catholics here. There are many of those who don’t care about Catholic teaching on this subject. On what ground would you think that they inflict a spiritual harm to themselves by using contraception?

How is it that you know no spiritual harm has been done to these people? Are you God, Who can see the states of their souls and Who is the One Who has the right to judge the states of their souls?

Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, by weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishments in this life or in purgatory.–From the Baltimore Catechism

 

[aprilfloyd]

It seems to me from your posts that you are willing only to accept empirical eviddence, so you may be unable to find our spiritual nature since you are not looking in the right direction.

It is not a questions of what I will accept as evidence, more a search to find what is true - irrespective of any view I may have. Hopefully my mind is open to all the possibilities but I accept that in having a Catholic upbringing that I may have a natural indoctrinated bias towards Catholicism and it’s position on the veracity of god(s)

I am interested in the spiritual side or nature that you mention.

 

[aprilfloyd]

As Catholics, we know it is bad for every human being because it is objectively a mortal sin. This does not mean that God will judge each person who uses abc has having sinned mortally, but the reason it is a sin is that it is harmful and will cause at least spiritual harm to each person who uses it.

With all due respect Catholics don’t know it is bad for every human being. The best that can be said is that it is a Catholic belief that it is bad.

 

[Tyrion]

Human - because right now I don’t know any other “sentient being” on the earth to tell me what is natural.

Sure… but when one tries to speak of philosophical concept, it is useful to ge as generic as possible.

Is the mother nature a good designer?

Mother nature is not a “designer” at all.

I thought that you kind of accept a designer based on your last paragraph in the post #6.

I have no idea why did you think that.

If you don’t believe in a designer then please explain what you mean when you talk about a “natural function”.

Whatever the forbidden topic of evolution happened to lead to.

What are they why do they exist? Do “natural functions” have a purpose or not? Can a purpose exist without a designer?

Some of them are useful, others are neutral, yet others are harmful… It is impossible to talk about it without some frame of reference. Cancer is natural, and harmful, for example.

Of course, an object can have multiple purposes.

…with or without a designer.

To say that an object does not have a purpose is not correct. Any idea of a designer has a purpose. Just playing with an idea, thinking, (even dismissing the idea right away) will lead the designer to another idea.
That’s an evolution.

Everything that we do has a purpose.
Everything in the nature has its purpose.

That was sheer nonsense. And it has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. If you wish to contribute to the thread, please, do so. If not, let’s drop this irrelevant conversation.

 

[Tyrion]

All I have to say to OP is this:

Good luck finding a woman (I’m assuming you’re a man) who’s going to agree to substitute oral sex and mutual masturbation for intercourse for the rest of your fertile lives!

What kind of nonsense is this “for the rest of your fertile lives”? We talk about some variety, mutually desired and satisfactory. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. It is your life, lead it as you wish. But don’t try to project your ideas onto others. There are amny people who like other things, too, not just the “Bam! Bam! Thank you ma’am!”

Have you ever even had intercourse? Oral sex and masterbation can’t hold a candle to it-physically or emotionally!
If my husband suggested what you’re suggesting, even if we weren’t Catholic, I’d probably divorce him!

I am a lucky guy not to have you as a wife!! By the way, how would you know how those “prohibited” methods feel like? Did you try them?

 

[aprilfloyd]

I am a lucky guy not to have you as a wife!! By the way, how would you know how those “prohibited” methods feel like? Did you try them?

Prohibited? I have never seen that law

 

[St_Francis]

With all due respect Catholics don’t know it is bad for every human being. The best that can be said is that it is a Catholic belief that it is bad.

When I wrote that, I was responding to someone who listed himself as Catholic. As Catholics, we believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are actually true, or at least we certainly ought to, no?

I want to go more fully into the your questions but don’t have time right now, and also maybe they should be in a different thread… what do you think?

 

[aprilfloyd]

When I wrote that, I was responding to someone who listed himself as Catholic. As Catholics, we believe the teachings of the Catholic Church are actually true, or at least we certainly ought to, no?

I want to go more fully into the your questions but don’t have time right now, and also maybe they should be in a different thread… what do you think?

I a happy for a new thread - Do you wish to start it?

When you say Catholics believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never taken that stance as true since I was a little boy in Church. Mainly because religion by it’s very nature is based on faith. There have been and are lots of religions with there own Gods. The general consensus seems to be that they are not all - the one. So I can’t except that Catholics believe theirs is ‘the one’ - when they know of all the others.

 

[levinas12]

Sex outside marriage is not caused by contraception.

A bit too facile.

Yes, and the internal combustion engine does not cause suburban sprawl.

Very few people would deny a connection between the pill (and, more “generically”, artificial contraception) and the sexual revolution.

And most everyone would agree that the sexual revolution is not all sweetness and light.

Once there is widespread acceptance of casual sex, breakdown ensues (with astronomical increases in abortion, divorce and short-term cohabitation; demographic winter; et al).

Consider the explosive increase in the STD rate, even though billions of condoms are readily available.

Ah, sociology is so convoluted. Oftentimes, the opposite of what you would expect happens.

Once you open Pandora’s box of non-martial orgasms, you cannot control the prairie fire (to mix myth and metaphor).

We’re not saying that artificial contraception is the only factor here. As with any social “event”, it’s complicated (like a perfect storm).

But it’s sophistic and cavalier simply to dismiss any connection.

 

[Tyrion]

A bit too facile.

Yes, and the internal combustion engine does not cause suburban sprawl.

Very few people would deny a connection between the pill (and, more “generically”, artificial contraception) and the sexual revolution.

And most everyone would agree that the sexual revolution is not all sweetness and light.

Once there is widespread acceptance of casual sex, breakdown ensues (with astronomical increases in short-term cohabitation and divorce rates; decrease in the marriage rate; demographic winter; et al).

Consider the increase in the STD rate, even though billions of condoms are readily available.

Ah, sociology is so convoluted. Oftentimes, the opposite of what you would expect happens.

Once you open Pandora’s box of non-martial orgasms, you cannot control the prairie fire (to mix myth and metaphor).

We’re not saying that artificial contraception is the only factor here. As with any social “event”, it’s complicated (like a perfect storm).

But it’s sophistic and cavalier simply to dismiss any connection.

Yes, there is connection. But connection is not causation, as we all know. So what? There is no hammer which can only be used on a nail, but never on someone else’s head - to be a little poetic here, too . To blame technology is incorrect.

But the question is not if there is a connection between a practice an some real or imaginary “ills” in society. The church’s teaching is not concerned about those - it is against the concept of contraception itself. The prohibition would be there even in no STD’s ever happened, if the contraceptive methods would be 100% foolproof… In the post #73 I posited the question, and I was wondering if anyone can come up with a meaningful answer. No one did (it was avoided like a plague!), but maybe you will. So, to spare you the need to go hunt for it, I will copy it here:

“There is this young couple, married and fully committed to each other, who will want to have kids - EVENTUALLY. For the time being they are building their future, and they know that to have kids at that point would be irresponsible and premature. Yet, they do not wish to forego the unitive aspect of sex. Therefore they use a (hypothetical) contraceptive method, which is perfect, which has no side effects.”

Please, analyze this scenario, and let me know if there is a secular reason to prohibit the behavior of that couple. Let me help you a bit. I am aware of the proposed NFP methods. Apart from the fact that its a form of birth control itself, this method is anything but “natural” - it is very artificial, with bad side effects. It kills the spontaneity, it imposes unnecessary “waiting period”, it requires certain protocol, record keeping, etc. So it is not a panacea for the question I posited.

 

[St_Francis]

I a happy for a new thread - Do you wish to start it?

When you say Catholics believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never taken that stance as true since I was a little boy in Church. Mainly because religion by it’s very nature is based on faith. There have been and are lots of religions with there own Gods. The general consensus seems to be that they are not all - the one. So I can’t except that Catholics believe theirs is ‘the one’ - when they know of all the others.

Here you go. I just talked about the first thing, which is the definition of faith, and figured we could go on from there little by little

Eta link

 

[levinas12]

Yes, there is connection. But connection is not causation, as we all know. So what? There is no hammer which can only be used on a nail, but never on someone else’s head - to be a little poetic here, too . To blame technology is incorrect.

But the question is not if there is a connection between a practice an some real or imaginary “ills” in society. The church’s teaching is not concerned about those - it is against the concept of contraception itself. The prohibition would be there even in no STD’s ever happened, if the contraceptive methods would be 100% foolproof… In the post #73 I posited the question, and I was wondering if anyone can come up with a meaningful answer. No one did (it was avoided like a plague!), but maybe you will. So, to spare you the need to go hunt for it, I will copy it here:

“There is this young couple, married and fully committed to each other, who will want to have kids - EVENTUALLY. For the time being they are building their future, and they know that to have kids at that point would be irresponsible and premature. Yet, they do not wish to forego the unitive aspect of sex. Therefore they use a (hypothetical) contraceptive method, which is perfect, which has no side effects.”

Please, analyze this scenario, and let me know if there is a secular reason to prohibit the behavior of that couple. Let me help you a bit. I am aware of the proposed NFP methods. Apart from the fact that its a form of birth control itself, this method is anything but “natural” - it is very artificial, with bad side effects. It kills the spontaneity, it imposes unnecessary “waiting period”, it requires certain protocol, record keeping, etc. So it is not a panacea for the question I posited.

In this posting, I’ll have to defer discussion of the young couple. But I promise a future posting. It’s interesting nonetheless how often “thought experiments” are used on this forum.

All I can say is that “contra naturam” is not an abstract concept. It has real consequences. And that’s what a lot of the responses have tried to address (some more successfully than others).

I should add that you provoked these responses by the way you framed the question.

Now you seem to be moving to a more metaphysical, or at least, hypothetical or “pure” level. And that may be OK – up to a point.

We can always get back to messy reality.

But I think we still need to engage on the concept of “nature”, and, more particularly, the distinction between “purpose” (subjective human intention) and “end” (teleology built into natural entities independent of human intention). P.S. this is not a Darwinian issue. Whether “functionality” is the result of chance or design is irrelevant; it’s still “functionality”.

Yet this is where the discussion gets stalled.

When we pointed out that certain organs have their own functionality (e.g., the heart is a pump), you said that the social cannot be reduced to the biological - but with no further elaboration.

And when we mentioned sociobiology, you seemed to pull back.

But certainly it is not unreasonable to assert social structures reflect certain “natural necessities” (whatever the latter might be). But you seemed to demur on this. It’s as if you question whether there are any “natural necessities” at all.

And so the discussion can’t even get started.

 

[Tyrion]

In this posting, I’ll have to defer discussion of the young couple.

If only I would be able to predict the next lottery numbers with such certainty…

But I promise a future posting.

Very well. I am looking forward to it.

It’s interesting nonetheless how often “thought experiments” are used on this forum.

They are, and for a good reason. The usual teachings of the church do not allow for exceptions. Everything is always black-and-white, there are no grey areas. As such it would be encumbent upon the apologists to answer and to substantiate even the most outlandish scenarios - and I cannot recall even one instance when they attempted to do it.

All I can say is that “contra naturam” is not an abstract concept. It has real consequences. And that’s what a lot of the responses have tried to address (some more successfully than others).

That would only be relevant if there would be a certain and deterministic cause-effect. As for the current topic, the “pill” did not create anything new. Divorce, infidelity, promiscuity, fornication. etc… were all aready there - along with the age-old mindset of “we want sex without conception”. At best you could blame the “pill” to make these practices more rampant, or at least more visible. None of that pertains to the absolute, blanket prohibition issued by the church.

Now you seem to be moving to a more metaphysical, or at least, hypothetical or “pure” level. And that may be OK – up to a point.

As I said, if there are no exceptions, then any and all hypothetical scenarios MUST be answered - even that “young couple”.

We can always get back to messy reality.

What is “messy” about that young couple? It is not even unlikely, much less “far-out”. I am sure that many young catholic couples do exactly like that. What kind of tangible problem arises from their behavior?

But I think we still need to engage on the concept of “nature”, and, more particularly, the distinction between “purpose” (subjective human intention) and “end” (teleology built into natural entities independent of human intention). P.S. this is not a Darwinian issue. Whether “functionality” is the result of chance or design is irrelevant; it’s still “functionality”.

“Telos” only exists when there is a “purposeful” entity who designs and creates the objects. To posit “telos” immediately brings about some “god”-like being, if that “telos” is applied to the natural world, even if you call it “functionality”.

Yet this is where the discussion gets stalled.

Sure it does, because the apologists do not wish to touch the real question with a ten-foot pole. Even if one accepts that sometimes, under some circumstances the act of contraception MIGHT be the cause of some undesirable results, that does not explain the “absolute, complete, total rejection” of the practice - especially since the called “natural” family planning is encouraged. It is an old proverb that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]That would only be relevant if there would be a certain and deterministic cause-effect. As for the current topic, the “pill” did not create anything new. Divorce, infidelity, promiscuity, fornication. etc… were all aready there - along with the age-old mindset of “we want sex without conception”…]

Age-old indeed. Documentation for contraceptive substances have been dated as early as 1850 BCE. Acacia gum was used in ancient Egypt. In modern times it has been confirmed to be a spermicide. (more info)

 

[Tyrion]

Age-old indeed. Documentation for contraceptive substances have been dated as early as 1850 BCE. Acacia gum was used in ancient Egypt. In modern times it has been confirmed to be a spermicide. (more info)

Indeed. How old is humanity? About a hundred thousand years? How old is christianity? A mere two thousand years old… So, for the first ninety-eight thousand years people were having sex without ever realizing that sex should be restricted to some kind of “marriage” and even in a marriage only if they were “open” to procreation, which they did not even know about for many tens of thousands of years… and when they realized it, they immediately tried to avoid it. But it was “scratched” unto their “heart” (as part of the “natural moral law”) and they never even knew about it.

I can just imagine Ug, a cave-man having a conversation with his son Ugo, whom he caught “red-handed” while he was fondling his own genitals and/or the girl Uga from the neighboring cave. Ug warns his son to save his “precious” virginity for the time when he can “marry” Uga in a sacred ceremony performed by the tribe’s shaman. Uga looks at his father and asks if he was feasting on those funny mushrooms again?

 

[levinas12]

“There is this young couple, married and fully committed to each other, who will want to have kids - EVENTUALLY. For the time being they are building their future, and they know that to have kids at that point would be irresponsible and premature. Yet, they do not wish to forego the unitive aspect of sex. Therefore they use a (hypothetical) contraceptive method, which is perfect, which has no side effects.”

And they lived happily ever after.

The problem here is question begging.

You assume the hypothetical contraceptive method is perfect, no side effects. And the sex continues to be ecstatically unitive.

Who could resist a deal like that?

Alas, like all utopias, it turns out to be a pipe dream.

Contraception was supposed to strengthen marriage and create a loving environment for children.

So how do you explain the colossal breakdown in family life in the most contracepted society in history?