What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

[cerad2]

1. 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.

So you can have a vasectomy and then say you are really really realy sorry and all will be well? I don’t think so. Not with Catholic logic.

 

[Nate13]

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 pregnancy than getting cut. At least according to some Catholics.

Exactly its the method used, not how effective the method is that is what is taken issue with. Then after you consider the right or wrongness of the method itself you look at intent or the attitude taken in using it. There are two separate considerations that are looked at to determine whether an action is right or wrong that we are talking about here.

This can be confusing because a lot of time the method chosen implies the intent in doing so. For example if I say I stole something just the fact that I stole something implies my intent in doing so. An action itself can have inherent intent to it. For example if I say someone murdered someone else that implies that they killed someone who was innocent, unjustly. If I just say I killed someone though, that does not imply any intent in the action. I may be a soldier who has killed an enemy combatant justly or I could be a murderer. The word used does not inherently imply either though.

Now to apply the above to the idea of contraception, contraception inherently has a meaning that is contrary to an open to life attitude. The word means “against conception”. So some will argue that contraception is not open to life and they mean inherently its not open to life. If we step back and look at what the couple is actually thinking though, they may believe they have an open to life intent in their actions. Do you see how this works?

Actions that inherently have mal intent by definition are considered intrinsically evil. Now, you can go ahead and try and show how NFP is intrinsically evil if you would like to try

 

[Geist]

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

If celibate men were to live first hand the financial, emotional, and marital stress children cause, they would drop all this instantly. Mark my words.

Taking sex advice form a priest is as sensible as taking an art history course taught by a man born blind; neither can possibly know first hand what they are talking about.

Fiddling around with the NFP nonsense is about as romantic and passionate as well…celibacy.

 

[Nate13]

If celibate men were to live first hand the financial, emotional, and marital stress children cause, they would drop all this instantly. Mark my words.

Taking sex advice form a priest is as sensible as taking an art history course taught by a man born blind; neither can possibly know first hand what they are talking about.

Fiddling around with the NFP nonsense is about as romantic and passionate as well…celibacy.

There are some married priests that have come into the priesthood after being in another church outside the Catholic Church and they do teach it, believe it, and practice it. Your still also not addressing the issue directly and instead blaming the teaching on who it is coming from. There are Protestant churches that also recognize this teaching as well and they have married pastors so your argument falls flat as well. Your inability to appreciate NFP though makes more sense when you also don’t appreciate the reasons for celibacy.

 

[105lynne]

If celibate men were to live first hand the financial, emotional, and marital stress children cause, they would drop all this instantly. Mark my words.

Taking sex advice form a priest is as sensible as taking an art history course taught by a man born blind; neither can possibly know first hand what they are talking about.

Fiddling around with the NFP nonsense is about as romantic and passionate as well…celibacy.

Oh goodness me! So, by your logic, no one can possibly have any accurate opinion or teach about anything or give any sound advice about anything unless they have personally experienced it? Ok, then let’s do away with all men who are gynocologists. How could they possibly give advice on how to deal with labor and menstrual periods if they’ve never experienced it? I guarantee you that I was smarter about sex than any other fellow college student I went to school with…and I wasn’t doing it! My husband and I practice NFP and it works for us. We are very romantic and intimate. You don’t have to be on each other every minute of every day to be totally in love and crazy about each other. We dated for 2 years and never had sex. After being in love and wanting so much to build a life together and not experiencing the physical intimacy for 2 long years, abstaining for 10 or 14 days a month is really not all that difficult.

 

[timotheos]

As the title says.

I notice two things. First, the OP has yet to respond to any of your answers. I wonder why.

Second, the OP is listed as “agnostic”. The answers that many have given, while correct according to Catholic teaching, pretty much amount to telling the Marlboro man that cigarette smoking will kill you. He may not have a reason to believe you, and he certainly doesn’t have a reason to care.

At least for now.

 

[Castello]

If celibate men were to live first hand the financial, emotional, and marital stress children cause, they would drop all this instantly. Mark my words.

Taking sex advice form a priest is as sensible as taking an art history course taught by a man born blind; neither can possibly know first hand what they are talking about.

Fiddling around with the NFP nonsense is about as romantic and passionate as well…celibacy.

If you are a Canidate for reception into the Church, you have around 10 weeks now to get to the place where you can stand before God and state that you believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches.

Respect for Her Holy Priests, embracing the teachings on marital sexuality are two teachings that you appear to decide to accept.

 

[Gorgias]

If celibate men were to live first hand the financial, emotional, and marital stress children cause, they would drop all this instantly. Mark my words.

You’re right, of course. Celibates just drop from the sky; they don’t have mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, or close friends who have to deal with “marital stress” and “children”, so there’s no opportunity for them to experience the needs of the laity. Thank goodness you pointed this out to us… we’re so silly!

Fiddling around with the NFP nonsense is about as romantic and passionate as well…celibacy.

Umm… you claim to be wise in the ways of the world about marriage – and you’re saying that day-to-day living out of marital realities is always “romantic” and “passionate”??? yeah, right…!

 

[Rico_S]

Uggh. Like most contraception threads, this is a mess. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion on this topic.

artificial contraception irreparably damages marriage and marital intimacy which is its biggest practical consequence.

I was sort of hoping the thread would develop along this line. What are the practical, tangible problems/issues that contraception introduces into a marriage? What does that “irreparable damage” look like?

 

[Castello]

Uggh. Like most contraception threads, this is a mess. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion on this topic.

I was sort of hoping the thread would develop along this line. What are the practical, tangible problems/issues that contraception introduces into a marriage? What does that “irreparable damage” look like?

Damage that may not be realized until our day of judgement.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

We do agree that God understands the marriage, I hope.
If we recognize that the abstinence harms some families, it brings evil effects, then the conclusion is that what Church is asking from these families is not morally sound act.
The act of abstinence does not pass double effect principle validation for some families.

The only way to say that Church’s teaching is the same as God’s will is to deny that the abstinence can bring evil effects.

The question stands are we going to deny that?

 

[cerad2]

Exactly its the method used, not how effective the method is that is what is taken issue with. Then after you consider the right or wrongness of the method itself you look at intent or the attitude taken in using it. There are two separate considerations that are looked at to determine whether an action is right or wrong that we are talking about here.
…
Actions that inherently have mal intent by definition are considered intrinsically evil. Now, you can go ahead and try and show how NFP is intrinsically evil if you would like to try

Nope. I’ll leave NFP alone.

I am curious as to how vasectomies ended up being considered intrinsically evil. Vasectomies are a fairly recent innovation. Not going to find much about them in the bible or in the first 1900 years or so of the church’s thinking.

And this whole thing about two separate considerations is well beyond my ability to understand.

 

[Castello]

We do agree that God understands the marriage, I hope.
If we recognize that the abstinence harms some families, it brings evil effects, then the conclusion is that what Church is asking from these families is not morally sound act.
The act of abstinence does not pass double effect principle validation for some families.

The only way to say that Church’s teaching is the same as God’s will is to deny that the abstinence can bring evil effects.

The question stands are we going to deny that?

Try it again. Abstaining is to be done for a just reason. If the abstaining is for a reason that is not just, the abstaining may bring trouble. Thing is, we as a society have lost sight of the true purposes of marriage that many times we cannot tell a just reason from a show shoe.

Also if one of the parties decides to sin during the abstention, that sin can bring harm that the undiscerning may blame on the abstention.

 

[Bookcat]

I am curious as to how vasectomies ended up being considered intrinsically evil. Vasectomies are a fairly recent innovation. Not going to find much about them in the bible or in the first 1900 years or so of the church’s thinking.

Because it is contraceptive.

The dropping of atomic bombs on whole cities of civilians are a recent invention too but murder was intrinsically evil prior to the invention of this means to do it.

Just a new means to an old sin.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Try it again. Abstaining is to be done for a just reason. If the abstaining is for a reason that is not just, the abstaining may bring trouble. Thing is, we as a society have lost sight of the true purposes of marriage that many times we cannot tell a just reason from a show shoe.

Also if one of the parties decides to sin during the abstention, that sin can bring harm that the undiscerning may blame on the abstention.

If an act has double effect it ought to be check against double effect principle.
The abstinence does not pass.

Does the reason justifies the means?

 

[Nate13]

Uggh. Like most contraception threads, this is a mess. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion on this topic.

I was sort of hoping the thread would develop along this line. What are the practical, tangible problems/issues that contraception introduces into a marriage? What does that “irreparable damage” look like?

Lets say just once a married man masturbates. Seems harmless, no great negative effect all is good right? Married man masturbates daily for 3 years. Effect is noticed in a marriage, no?

Contraception sneaks up on you in similar manner whether or not the couple believes they are using each other or not. Just because the married man who is masturbating does not believe he is using the women in porn does not mean he isn’t doing so. Gaining sexual pleasure from watching porn has inherent negative intent to it, regardless of the supposed intent the person is aware of. Contraception is just like that in that it has inherent negative intent to the act, regardless of what the couple believes their intent is while using it. The effects sneak up on you regardless as to whether or not you are consciously aware of it. People eventually recognize when they are being used whether someone means to or not, and it creates resentment. The direct ramifications of using contraception are mostly seen within the people doing so and not so much in their actions, at least not directly.

We are not machines and cannot continually commit these kinds of sins without them having an effect. When you look at it from this perspective you can see why the divorce rate and acceptance of abortion is often times blamed on contraception.

 

[Castello]

If an act has double effect it ought to be check against double effect principle.
The abstinence does not pass.

Does the reason justifies the means?

Maybe you are just wayyyy smarter than me.

Abstaining is hard, difficult, it is SUPPOSED TO BE.

We married folks are supposed to just welcome children as God sends them.

Other things are difficult. It is difficult to go without food, but, if I do it for a just reason (let’s say we are very poor and I let my child have my share of the food) then it is a joy to do the difficult thing.

Abstaining is difficult. If I do it for a just reason it is a joy to do the difficult thing.

OTOH, if I do it for a selfish reason, it is going to be an extra burden that may make me just be ugly to everyone around me.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Maybe you are just wayyyy smarter than me.

Abstaining is hard, difficult, it is SUPPOSED TO BE.

We married folks are supposed to just welcome children as God sends them.

Other things are difficult. It is difficult to go without food, but, if I do it for a just reason (let’s say we are very poor and I let my child have my share of the food) then it is a joy to do the difficult thing.

Abstaining is difficult. If I do it for a just reason it is a joy to do the difficult thing.

OTOH, if I do it for a selfish reason, it is going to be an extra burden that may make me just be ugly to everyone around me.

Don’t assume that. It might not be true. Keep your head up.

If we recognize that the abstinence harms some families, it brings evil effects, then the conclusion is that what Church is asking from these families is not morally sound act.
The act of abstinence does not pass double effect principle validation for some families.

The only way to say that Church’s teaching is the same as God’s will is to deny that the abstinence can bring evil effects.

The question stands are we going to deny that?

The question stands to anybody on CAF.
If I made a mistake where it is.

 

[Nate13]

Don’t assume that. It might not be true. Keep your head up.
The question stands to anybody on CAF.
If I made a mistake where it is.

If we recognize that the abstinence harms some families, it brings evil effects, then the conclusion is that what Church is asking from these families is not morally sound act.
The act of abstinence does not pass double effect principle validation for some families.

The only way to say that Church’s teaching is the same as God’s will is to deny that the abstinence can bring evil effects.

I’ll apply your argument to something else. Giving money to charity brings harm to some people because it can make them prideful, thus having an evil effect, therefore the Church is wrong in asking people to give to charity.

Requiring weekly mass attendance can have a negative effect on families where the couple are not both Catholic, thus having an evil effect, therefore the Church is wrong to require weekly mass attendance for these couples.

What do both of these examples have in common? The problem is not being cause by the action itself, but rather the failings of the people committing the action. Unless your going to try and argue that abstinence is inherently evil you have no case.

Heck being Catholic can have a negative effect on a person’s marriage in some cases, thus having an evil effect, therefore the Church is wrong to require people in the Church to be Catholic…

Your argument effectively makes requiring anything, morally wrong.

 

[Rico_S]

The effects sneak up on you regardless as to whether or not you are consciously aware of it. People eventually recognize when they are being used whether someone means to or not, and it creates resentment.

So you are saying the practical effect of the use of contraception in marriage is resentment from the feeling of being used? Resentment that will be realized regardless of the couple views of contraception use?