What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Monosov
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As the title says.
Contraceptives are immoral because their usage is motivated through lust.
The Church does not consider lust to be sexual desire. Lust is the desire to pursue sexual pleasure isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes. This includes the usage of contraceptives, but also covers issues of masturbation, fornication and every other sexual sin (though some sexual sins such a rape can have a wrathful componant).

So you’re real question is, what is so bad about seeking sexual pleasure isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes? Ok, so basically what are the effects of lust? 1. Treating women as objects 2. The degrading of the human individual. Children are viewed as commodities. That is to say where we view human individuals as primarily consumers who can work together for a common objectify to the benefit of each other or compete with each other for limited resources. Ultimately we either use people or we try to get people out of our way because we think life should ultimately revolve around fulfilling our carnal desires in order to pursue happiness.
 
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.
This point of view has always tugged at me a little–shouldn’t we leave it up to God? But this is one way to think about it. Please correct me if it doesn’t make sense.

We don’t want to be hit by cars. We trust that God doesn’t want this either, but we also trust that He will take us when our time comes. Does that mean that we go out and walk in the streets, without caution, saying, “If God doesn’t want me to die, He’ll stop a car from hitting me.” I don’t think so. We use caution when crossing the street. Sometimes, we’ll mess up and cross at the wrong time. God may intervene, or at least save us from death, and we trust that He will if He wants to. Sometimes we cross at the right time, and you know? God could intervene then too, if He wanted, and cause something crazy to happen, which causes us to die. At the same time, we don’t carry around an AK-47 and flatten the tires of cars driving down the road when we want to cross.

I think we need to prayerfully discern how many kids God wants us to have and be open to the possibility that we are wrong about how many kids God wants us to have. While I know NFP works, it seems to me (I have read about NFP and observe informally; we start our NFP course in two and a half weeks) that it’s easy to misread some of the signs, and sometimes, our bodies (and our wills) don’t work exactly the way we plan or expect. God can use that! At the same time, cutting off the possibility of having [more] kids by using contraception is different from using NFP, because instead of letting our bodies work the way they’re supposed to work (letting cars drive down the street), we modify it, and in not-so-great ways, to suit our needs, ignoring those of others. The needs of others in the case of having kids is slightly harder to know, while it’s obvious that it is not a good idea to flatten other drivers’ tires–especially by shooting a gun. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s a potentially useful comparison.

My cousin was born 8 years after his siblings. My aunt and uncle didn’t seem exactly thrilled that they were having another kid when they found out they were. But he’s been a blessing and a joy to our family, and I strongly doubt my aunt and uncle regret having him at all. I think he was God’s will.
 
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”.
I thought that it was Jesus the Judge!
Now I come to see that it is You !
Sorry, my fellow, first understand WHAT I said, TO WHOM I said, WHY I SAID that to that particular person, IN WHICH CONTEXT I said, not taking sentences out of context.
Sorry, I have no patience to explain to you.
I have sinned, you said… What can I say more?..
 
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?
Just to go back to this earlier post… The “intent” of anything might be good, even holy, but the** means** of reaching the end can be flawed and sinful. For example, a person’s intent to lose weight is a good thing; dieting and exercise are noble and healthy means, but starving and/or bulimia are not. A person who has the desire to provide for his family might take on an extra shift to make more money; this is different from robbing a corner store. Nothing wrong with the “intent”, but the road one chooses to meet the desired result is the clincher.
 
I thought that it was Jesus the Judge!
Now I come to see that it is You !
Sorry, my fellow, first understand WHAT I said, TO WHOM I said, WHY I SAID that to that particular person, IN WHICH CONTEXT I said, not taking sentences out of context.
Sorry, I have no patience to explain to you.
I have sinned, you said… What can I say more?..
Pfaff,

I think the point is simply that, in the way you phrased your answer, you dumbed it down a little too much. It would seem that there’s a way to make the Church’s teaching approachable without washing away some of its essential points.

The risk in your approach, of course, is that you’re not speaking to one person: by the very nature of an online forum, your post will be read by many people, who have a range of understandings of the Catholic faith, and over a period of time (it always surprises me when something I’ve written years ago pops up in a newly-replied-to thread!).

With that in mind, I think that what’s in play is just the charitable reminder to be careful how you put things, so that they don’t mislead. (And yes, I would often do well to remember that advice, too…)

Blessings,
G.
 
Just to go back to this earlier post… The “intent” of anything might be good, even holy, but the** means** of reaching the end can be flawed and sinful. For example, a person’s intent to lose weight is a good thing; dieting and exercise are noble and healthy means, but starving and/or bulimia are not. A person who has the desire to provide for his family might take on an extra shift to make more money; this is different from robbing a corner store. Nothing wrong with the “intent”, but the road one chooses to meet the desired result is the clincher.
The same can be said about NFP and the abstinence when in some cases they hurt families.
 
The same can be said about NFP and the abstinence when in some cases they hurt families.
When one is abstaining for NFP or for another reason, and it is a valid just reason, it does does not hurt families. Now, the individuals who make up the marriage can harm the marriage through their sins they choose.

Those who blame NFP for marriage trouble when their spouse wants to reject Church teaching is sort of like deciding to marry a person who hates to travel on the water, then setting sail on a life long cruise and blaming the boat because the spouse is angry.
 
When one is abstaining for NFP or for another reason, and it is a valid just reason, it does does not hurt families. Now, the individuals who make up the marriage can harm the marriage through their sins they choose.

Those who blame NFP for marriage trouble when their spouse wants to reject Church teaching is sort of like deciding to marry a person who hates to travel on the water, then setting sail on a life long cruise and blaming the boat because the spouse is angry.
Your statement is generic and I’ve seen instances where it’s not the case.
It might work for some people but not for everybody.
 
When I went to pre-Cana I remember the couple leading it, the man had said he had a vasectomy after 3 kids.

My wife had her tubes tied after her last pregnancy, which almost killed her and the baby (her uterus ruptured along an old c-section scar).

I fail to see how that will damage our relationship. These policies are written by celibate men after all, gotta take the sex-ed advice with a grain of salt. When the Vaticanistas get up three times a night, every night for a few years straight, then they may reconsider this stuff.
 
Your statement is generic and I’ve seen instances where it’s not the case.
It might work for some people but not for everybody.
Obeying God is the good and right thing to do. Really, we believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, is God and Man, that at Mass that wafer and wine become His body and blood… but, God is still so powerless and too stupid to understand marriage? I would not worship a God who would tell us to do something that is evil.
 
When I went to pre-Cana I remember the couple leading it, the man had said he had a vasectomy after 3 kids.

My wife had her tubes tied after her last pregnancy, which almost killed her and the baby (her uterus ruptured along an old c-section scar).

I fail to see how that will damage our relationship. These policies are written by celibate men after all, gotta take the sex-ed advice with a grain of salt. When the Vaticanistas get up three times a night, every night for a few years straight, then they may reconsider this stuff.
Ah common you know better than this. If you don’t believe the teaching explain why you don’t believe the teaching. Attacking the person putting voice to the teaching is bogus. I’ll put voice to the teaching, or someone else who has 10 kids will if that will make you take it more seriously and give it more credibility. Or go to the family section and hear from someone practicing NFP who is in a similar situation to your wife. Obviously the past is the past, but going forward you could at least learn about the teaching.

The Church’s solution in the case where pregnancy could cause serious health problems is to practice NFP conservatively and there are couples on this site that can attest to doing just that and under more extraneous circumstances than you have laid out. Practicing NFP as such is above 99% effective and puts complete control in the hands of the couple and not in the off chance that the procedure reverses itself. If the threat of death is really inevitable though, the only moral course of action would be to abstain. A 1 in 300 chance (risk of tubal ligation failing) of death going forward is very risky and is only slightly above the risk a soldier going into combat in Iraq would face assuming pregnancy brings a very real chance of death for the woman.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm
The sympto-thermal method of NFP has been shown to be 99.4-99.6% effective when used correctly and it is not even one of the most reliable and all around methods that can be used for NFP. That study also included the women who accidentally had unprotected sex during their fertile period in the results out of the 900 women who participated so its results did not even depend on perfect use.

So using the sympto-thermal method your risk of pregnancy worst case scenario would be around 1 in 167 best case 1 in 250 and you would have the benefit of complete control over whether it worked or not. If you added a couple safe days when using this method though and either side of the cycle you could bump that ratio into the 99.9%+ range, and again like I said you have complete control over the process and are not relying on chance at all. Once you reach the 99.9% range you reach the point where your chance of pregnancy is 1 in 1000+.

Thus just being pragmatic it would seem to me that a woman who was at a serious serious risk to dying from pregnancy should practice a form of NFP conservatively as opposed to another method or complete abstinence.

The only plus I can see for getting a tubal ligation from the pragmatic sense and without even consulting the moral sense is that it is a one time thing where you do it and just accept the risk forever after that even if overall its a higher risk. This would purely be a decision made out of emotional concerns though and not based in reason. The sterilization option also means you don’t have to abstain for half of every month as well. This really does not mean less sex though, it just means you have less time to get the same amount of sex in 😉
 
Even NFP is considered a sin if committed habitually without valid reason (e.g. health, etc.)/ What the Church teaches is that in the presence of a valid reason, this is the method provided.

Yes, if we’re only dealing with logic/reason/science pro-contraceptive people may seem to have valid arguments (just as anti-contraceptive people). But that would mean we accept that the universe, people, and even God is just part of one big machine that works perfectly. No, God is a person with infinite power and wisdom. Logically, we cannot walk on water, but God can make us. A thief can shoot you in the head and God can stop the bullet. Our logic/reason/science cannot ever compare with God’s. He can cause an entire nation to populate heavily without contraception, yet, he can also cause a sinful nation to be completely obliterated by calamity. The Church, like St. Peter, is imperfect. But among imperfect people, she is the Bride of Christ and the best possible guide.
 
It’s threads like these that convince me that I’ll never understand Catholic logic.
  1. No sex without a chance of reproduction.
  2. Vasectomy has X% failure rate
  3. Therefore it should be okay to have sex after a vasectomy.
But no no no. That would be bad.
 
It’s threads like these that convince me that I’ll never understand Catholic logic.
  1. No sex without a chance of reproduction.
  2. Vasectomy has X% failure rate
  3. Therefore it should be okay to have sex after a vasectomy.
But no no no. That would be bad.
  1. Suicide is wrong.
  2. I will attach 200 pounds weights to myself and jump in the ocean in the middle of nowhere and have about a 0.01% chance of survival assuming I struggle out of the weights I have strapped to myself.
  3. Thus jumping as mentioned above is not suicide since there is still a chance I will survive and therefore its ok to do so.
Your falling for the idea that contraception is wrong because its not “open to life” idea which is inaccurate. When people say its about being “open to life” they are more describing the attitude with which you approach sex, not so much the percentage. The NFP process lends itself to promoting an “open to life” attitude, but NFP could be used with a “non open to life” attitude as well.
 
It’s threads like these that convince me that I’ll never understand Catholic logic.
  1. No sex without a chance of reproduction.
  2. Vasectomy has X% failure rate
  3. Therefore it should be okay to have sex after a vasectomy.
But no no no. That would be bad.
Huh?
  1. False (older couples or infertile couples have legit relations)
  2. It is a mortal sin to have a vasectomy. But if the person later truly repents – they are not obliged due to various reasons (such as --as I recall not a good rate of success and the pain involved) to seek to reverse it. The person must repent …but it is False to say that they can not then have martial relations.
 
Your falling for the idea that contraception is wrong because its not “open to life” idea which is inaccurate. When people say its about being “open to life” they are more describing the attitude with which you approach sex, not so much the percentage. The NFP process lends itself to promoting an “open to life” attitude, but NFP could be used with a “non open to life” attitude as well.
So as long as I have a “open to life attitude” then getting a vasectomy is okay? Somehow, I think the answer will be no.

Even though NFP is more effective at preventing pregancy than getting cut. At least according to some Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top