What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Monosov
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sexual intercourse without the intention of procreation is viewed as the wrong use of our physical faculties. We are each called upon to master one’s self. Contraceptives allow people to give in to their urges without any corresponding responsibility. It leads many couples to view sexual union as simply a recreational activity.

Just because a couple are married (and many are not even so) doesn’t mean they can do whatever they want with God’s gifts–our bodies and the act itself. Marriage is a license to use the gift of sexual union responsibly–not a ticket to use it indiscriminately (which contraceptives justify).
 
It is because of the nature of belief. We believe that God created men and women. We also believe that as Scripture says, God is in control and God will provide for us. To use contraceptives is to say “I know better than God.” It is to try and take your life into your hands and to do God’s job. It’s also turning the marriage act into a selfish one. The marriage act is a great blessing in which God allows us to participate in the creation of life. We get to be vessels of that grace, of that life passing into the world. God made us in his image, and as such designed the marriage act as a way that we could participate in the nature of God. That is in creation. God is the ultimate creator.

So when we use contraceptives we take that grace out of the equation. We turn it into a selfishness. We turn it into nothing but sexual and lustful pleasure. We have taken the gift of being working vessels for God’s love to flood into the world, through the gift of a newborn child and turned it merely into an orgasm. Instead of seeking to bring life, we simply seek to please our own bodies. That is just one example of why it is wrong. It doesn’t even address the nature of aboritificants, sexual promiscuity, etc.
 
bmullins said:
It is because of the nature of belief. We believe that God created men and women. We also believe that as Scripture says, God is in control and God will provide for us. To use contraceptives is to say “I know better than God.” It is to try and take your life into your hands and to do God’s job. It’s also turning the marriage act into a selfish one. The marriage act is a great blessing in which God allows us to participate in the creation of life. We get to be vessels of that grace, of that life passing into the world. God made us in his image, and as such designed the marriage act as a way that we could participate in the nature of God. That is in creation. God is the ultimate creator.

So when we use contraceptives we take that grace out of the equation. We turn it into a selfishness. We turn it into nothing but sexual and lustful pleasure. We have taken the gift of being working vessels for God’s love to flood into the world, through the gift of a newborn child and turned it merely into an orgasm. Instead of seeking to bring life, we simply seek to please our own bodies. That is just one example of why it is wrong. It doesn’t even address the nature of aboritificants, sexual promiscuity, etc.
Click to expand...
With this thinking then it would appear as if NFP is also selfish as married people (where the purpose of marriage is to procreate according to the CC) make their own decision when to have children by monitoring their fertility cycles. They are not letting God decide what is best for them but are having sex outside of the fertile cycles to purposely avoid children and enjoying sex purely for the bonding and pleasure. I read on here all the time that NFP must only be used for grave reasons but I’m thinking that contradicts the trust we are to have in God being in control and providing. I guess I don’t really get how the intent of someone using NFP to avoid/space children is any different than the intent of someone using contraception. I am using the word “intent” purposely and not referring to the physicality of the act. Doesn’t what is in one’s heart matter?

Not meaning to be argumentative at all…just trying to understand the difference and how NFP can be acceptable and contraception is not…based on my arguments above.
 
With NFP having a child can still be a possibility. When they have sex, they still have the potential to have a child. They aren’t stopping God from blessing them. They are saying rather, “God I don’t know that we can afford a child right now, we have reasons, but if it is your will we will abide by it.” One attempts to remove the ability of the sperm to impregnate the egg by removing one or the other from the equation (or destroying it after fertilization). With NFP the sperm and egg are both present in their intended ways. One is not changing the natural order of things.

There is a fundamental difference in the two.
 
bmullins said:
With NFP having a child can still be a possibility. When they have sex, they still have the potential to have a child. They aren’t stopping God from blessing them. They are saying rather, “God I don’t know that we can afford a child right now, we have reasons, but if it is your will we will abide by it.” One attempts to remove the ability of the sperm to impregnate the egg by removing one or the other from the equation (or destroying it after fertilization). With NFP the sperm and egg are both present in their intended ways. One is not changing the natural order of things.

There is a fundamental difference in the two.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation! However, I still think someone is fooling themselves if they believe that contraception stops the possibility of pregnancy. Nothing short of abstinence can guarantee that. All methods of contraception have failure rates and pregnancies result all the time from people who use contraception. No matter if someone uses contraception or NFP they can still be open to life if a pregnancy results…it’s a mindset.
 
artificial contraception irreparably damages marriage and marital intimacy which is its biggest practical consequence.
 
One could say much in response to that question. But I would note as an example that it is contrary to love…

" In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love."

~ Bl. Pope John Paul II General Audience, August 22, 1984
 
Slinger said:
With this thinking then it would appear as if NFP is also selfish as married people (where the purpose of marriage is to procreate according to the CC) make their own decision when to have children by monitoring their fertility cycles. They are not letting God decide what is best for them but are having sex outside of the fertile cycles to purposely avoid children and enjoying sex purely for the bonding and pleasure. I read on here all the time that NFP must only be used for grave reasons but I’m thinking that contradicts the trust we are to have in God being in control and providing. I guess I don’t really get how the intent of someone using NFP to avoid/space children is any different than the intent of someone using contraception. I am using the word “intent” purposely and not referring to the physicality of the act. Doesn’t what is in one’s heart matter?

Not meaning to be argumentative at all…just trying to understand the difference and how NFP can be acceptable and contraception is not…based on my arguments above.
Click to expand...
God made us so we have a fertile period and an infertile period, and that we can engage in marital relations at any time. This is unlike most other animals.

And there is no sin at all attached to engaging in marital relations during the infertile period, so what occurs or does not occur during that time is not relevant to the issue.

Which leaves us with what we do during our time of fertility. We can engage in marital relations then or not: neither is sinful.

The problem occurs when we engage in marital relations during our period of fertility and deliberately and intentionally frustrate the fertility. That is having sex purely for the one thing we can get out of it while denying the potentiality of the act.

Imagine that someone who loved you gave you an antique Rolls Royce which he had completely restored himself and you used it in a bumper car event where they just run into each other just because you happen to really enjoy those events. What would that say to the person who gave it to you?

Well, God loves you more than that person possibly could, and the gift of physical marital intimacy and its potential to join with God in the creation of human life is a much greater gift than a perfectly restored Rolls Royce. We should not trash His gift to us.
 
As easy as I can explain it (note that there is a lot of bad information above):

The purpose of intercourse is to unify and to procreate - denying either of those purposes is a mortal sin. Contraception denies the procreative property of intercourse and therefore, it is a mortal sin in all of its forms, which INCLUDES natural family planning if it is employed improperly and with the express intent of engaging in sexual activity while denying the procreative act (see vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html.
 
Sex is both unitive and procreative.

What is the purpose of sex being procreative?
  • to make babies bringing new life into the World and furthering humanity. New life brings glory to God, and allows us to participate in his Creation.
What is the purpose of sex being unitive?
  1. To entice a married couple to have sex so they make babies.
  2. To bring a married couple closer together and bind them in a bond that is unbreakable for the sake of the children they have as well as the potential children they may have in the future.
What do the purposes of sex being unitive have in common? They both revolve around children. The purpose of sex being unitive for the couple is that is for the good of their children. The Early Church Fathers were not wrong at all in saying the purpose of sex was only procreation. They were exactly right. In clarification though of exactly what that means and how the unitive function of sex plays into that, the Church has further clarified by saying sex must be both unitive and procreative.

Therefore you see that it separating the unitive and procreative meanings of sex is impossible to do. Both those purposes have children as their end goal.
 
Many of the world’s wisdom traditions hold that there are, in the end, only two paths we can follow in this world…the path of wisdom or the path of pleasure. Within the Catholic wisdom tradition a consistent ethic of and for life along with a collective accountability to sustain, replenish and have dominion over the earth, as directed by the first words of God in Genesis, are primary moral obligations. Within this context contraception is seen as a pre-abortive action - preventing the Spirit from entering the physical world in the form of a new creation, a new child. Once widely accepted, contraception leads to abortion as a backup plan. Since it is ok to “play God” and stifle creation, pre-conception, it becomes acceptable post-conception as well. Once society crosses those two moral boundaries, sex for pleasure alone is a natural result along with pornography, adultery, spousal abuse, addictions, sensuality, and other societal maladies resulting from an ill-formed conscience. The wisdom to be gained in traditional families, in the natural order of creation, becomes seen as only one “alternative” to a variety of family structures that do not include 2 biological parents and children. From this “anything-goes” mentality abuses of mother earth in the form of a disposable (instant gratification) economy are at least one predictable outcome. Sadly even some of the shepherds of the Church have faltered in holding strong to these ancient principles and the magisterim/teaching of the faith - the result is now a mandate by the Obama administration to include contraception in all national health plans squarely against the moral obligation. When we forgo wisdom for pleasure, we forgo our responsibility to God, to each other and to the planet.
 
1ke said:
This is quite false. Contraception is a grave evil and a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

Not all methods of contraception have abortifacient properties.

Natural family planning is not contraception.
Click to expand...
I was answering to the other fellow, thinking of his mind not on the fine points who are raising. The answer was not for you. If you want, answer to him.
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I was answering to the other fellow, thinking of his mind not on the fine points who are raising. The answer was not for you. If you want, answer to him.
Click to expand...
You realize that when you state you are Catholic and give answers that contradict the teaching of Holy Mother Church that you run the risk of the sin of scandal, do you not? Why would you want to lead people astray? When your personal beliefs are against the Church, it would be the polite thing to do to state that “What I am saying is against the Church”.
 
Slinger said:
Thanks for the explanation! However, I still think someone is fooling themselves if they believe that contraception stops the possibility of pregnancy. Nothing short of abstinence can guarantee that. All methods of contraception have failure rates and pregnancies result all the time from people who use contraception. No matter if someone uses contraception or NFP they can still be open to life if a pregnancy results…it’s a mindset.
Click to expand...
Except, perhaps, sterilization. 😉
puzzleannie said:
artificial contraception irreparably damages marriage and marital intimacy which is its biggest practical consequence.
Click to expand...
Best to say simply “contraception”, methinks. Otherwise, some might get the idea that “natural contraception” is morally acceptable. Better yet to use the term “contracepted sex”.
 
Newbie2 said:
Except, perhaps, sterilization. 😉
Click to expand...
A tubal ligation has about the same effectiveness as the pill does when taken following the directions. It is most effective for the first year after it was done, but 84% of the failures of this procedure to work happen after the first year. A tubal ligation also increases the risk of an ectopic pregnancy if it does fail to prevent conception.

Vasectomies have about a 1 in 2000 failure rate compared to 1 in 200-300 for tubal ligations.
Best to say simply “contraception”, methinks. Otherwise, some might get the idea that “natural contraception” is morally acceptable. Better yet to use the term “contracepted sex”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that calling it “artificial contraception” only further skews the Church’s position and leaves rise for the complaints that the Church is just against science. If someone knows anything about NFP they would understand how silly that claim is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top