What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

[Nate13]

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?

Resentment is one possible emotional response. My explanation here is very generalized and inadequate though. I recommend reading the first Chapter of Love and Responsibility where JPII talks about the difference between Love and Using and how these two are the exact opposites of each other. It outlines step by step the consequences. I’m no JPII at explaining this and the quote I would need to post is 20 pages of the book

There is a simplified version of the Love and Responsibility that makes it easier to read out there that is put together by Monsignor Vincent M. Walsh that is good if you would rather have that.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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.

Fair enough. Good points. Let me ask differently.
Is it morally sound from the Church to bind people only to the abstinence?

If giving money to a charity should cause an evil effect you should not give. The Church is asking but not saying it’s a sin if you don’t support.

Going to the church on Sunday is required but would it be sin if you did not go?
It all depends on conditions and how big the evil effect would be.

It’s OK to ask but I don’t think it’s OK to force just one option.

It’s OK to ask to love God but I don’t think it’s OK to force everybody to love in one specific way.

 

[Castello]

Fair enough. Good points. Let me ask differently.
Is it morally sound from the Church to bind people only to the abstinence?

If giving money to a charity should cause an evil effect you should not give. The Church is asking but not saying it’s a sin if you don’t support.

Going to the church on Sunday is required but would it be sin if you did not go?
It all depends on conditions and how big the evil effect would be.

It’s OK to ask but I don’t think it’s OK to force just one option.

It’s OK to ask to love God but I don’t think it’s OK to force everybody to love in one specific way.

The commandments of God are not “suggestions”.

We are commanded under pain of sin to attend Mass on Sunday and HDOs.

We are commanded to support our parish and to give to others. What scripture and Catechism tell you that giving and going to Mass are optional?

No married person is bound to abstain, it is voluntary.

 

[Nate13]

Fair enough. Good points. Let me ask differently.
Is it morally sound from the Church to bind people only to the abstinence?

If giving money to a charity should cause an evil effect you should not give. The Church is asking but not saying it’s a sin if you don’t support.

Going to the church on Sunday is required but would it be sin if you did not go?
It all depends on conditions and how big the evil effect would be.

It’s OK to ask but I don’t think it’s OK to force just one option.

It’s OK to ask to love God but I don’t think it’s OK to force everybody to love in one specific way.

The argument would be that using a contraceptive could never be considered an option that shows love because its intrinsically evil. In other words using contraception is always a grave offense against God, no matter what.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507808

I would ask whether you would ever support murdering as being a choice that could show love of God? Obviously murder is a much more serious crime in some respects, but it is intrinsically evil as well. There are some appealing arguments as to why euthanasia should be allowed in some cases, but yet again it is intrinsically evil and no amount of pain a person is going through makes euthanizing them allowable or in any way shows love of God.

If contraception is intrinsically evil there is no case where it would be permissible for me to choose to use contraception myself.

The only leeway on this I have ever seen revolves around whether or not it is ok to have sex with a spouse who says sex or divorce, and is using the contraception themselves, not demanding you use it. At this point priests have some leeway in council and a variety of factors can affect the choice as to what is best for the marriage and the two individually.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The argument would be that using a contraceptive could never be considered an option that shows love because its intrinsically evil. In other words using contraception is always a grave offense against God, no matter what.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=507808

I would ask whether you would ever support murdering as being a choice that could show love of God? Obviously murder is a much more serious crime in some respects, but it is intrinsically evil as well. There are some appealing arguments as to why euthanasia should be allowed in some cases, but yet again it is intrinsically evil and no amount of pain a person is going through makes euthanizing them allowable or in any way shows love of God.

If contraception is intrinsically evil there is no case where it would be permissible for me to choose to use contraception myself.

The only leeway on this I have ever seen revolves around whether or not it is ok to have sex with a spouse who says sex or divorce, and is using the contraception themselves, not demanding you use it. At this point priests have some leeway in council and a variety of factors can affect the choice as to what is best for the marriage and the two individually.

What is one of the major purposes/endresults of NFP and the abstinence?
You choose not to be procreative. Is that correct?

 

[Nate13]

What is one of the major purposes/endresults of NFP and the abstinence?
You choose not to be procreative. Is that correct?

You choose not to pursue conceiving a child, yes. I sense a change in tactics

 

[Jaaanosik]

You choose not to pursue conceiving a child, yes. I sense a change in tactics

You’ve changed slightly topic from the abstinence to the contraception.

Can we say the same about non abortive contraception? You choose not to pursue conceiving a child.
What is intrinsically evil about non abortive contraception?

Edit: I still stand by my argument that the abstinence does not pass double effect principle.

 

[Bookcat]

What is intrinsically evil about non abortive contraception?

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

The same can be said about the abstinence.
The abstinence hinders procreation.

 

[Nate13]

The same can be said about the abstinence.

Abstinence is inaction. Its the opposite of action lol.

ab·sti·nence/ˈabstənəns/
Noun:
The fact or practice of restraining oneself from indulging in something.

1. the act or practice of refraining from some action or from the use of something, esp alcohol

Are you trying to argue that abstinence is intrinsically evil? That is the vibe I’m getting from your arguments.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Abstinence is inaction. Its the opposite of action lol.

ab·sti·nence/ˈabstənəns/
Noun:
The fact or practice of restraining oneself from indulging in something.

1. the act or practice of refraining from some action or from the use of something, esp alcohol

Are you trying to argue that abstinence is intrinsically evil? That is the vibe I’m getting from your arguments.

They achieve the same endresult.
Why is action evil? What is argument for it?

 

[Nate13]

They achieve the same endresult.
Why is action evil? What is argument for it?

The Catechism is saying that it is wrong to do anything or have done anything so that it affects fertility during the act. Its talking about when your committing the act. Not when your in the kitchen making waffles instead of having sex.

*sorry added this late to my last post

 

[Jaaanosik]

The Catechism is saying that it is wrong to do anything or have done anything so that it affects fertility during the act. Its talking about when your committing the act. Not when your in the kitchen making waffles instead of having sex.

*sorry added this late to my last post

Why it’s wrong?

 

[Nate13]

Why it’s wrong?

If I asked you why it was bad if I purposefully made myself deaf would you not give me a funny look?

 

[Nate13]

Why it’s wrong?

Purpose of sex:

1. procreative i.e continue the species and be apart of God’s Creation
2. unitive

Why is sex unitive? ---- To bring a man and woman in marriage closer together and bind them as one.

Why would God want a man and woman to become one in marriage? ---- To provide a stable foundation (a family) in which to raise the kids they have or will have or could possibly have.

In other words sex is unitive for the sake of children first and foremost, not for the sake of the couple. If sex was not procreative, there would be no reason for sex to be unitive. You cannot argue the opposite. If sex was not unitive there would still be every reason for it to be procreative. We see this in animals actually that do not raise children in a family unit.

Thus the purpose of sex being unitive is children and the purpose of sex being procreative is children.

Sex is about children. Purposefully changing a woman’s or man’s fertility during the sexual act is a contradiction in and of itself to the purpose of sex even if you are having sex with more of the unitive function in mind.

 

[onenow1]

Lambeth Confrence of 1930, opened the door for contraception and the results are in pills ,approx.50,000,000,abortions later and generally an acceptance of the view, God ,does not care, or even exists and is, contrary to His words in Genesis, go forth increase and multiply.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Gorgias]

If sex was not procreative, there would be no reason for sex to be unitive.

Thus the purpose of sex being unitive is children and the purpose of sex being procreative is children.

Sex is about children.

I’m not sure you’re entirely correct. I’m pretty sure that John Paul II wouldn’t agree with you – you might try checking out the Theology of the Body to see the emphasis that he places on the unitive aspect of marital sexuality, as a means of achieving one of the goals of marriage (hint: it’s not the goal of having children). Unity in marriage is a goal that stands on its own two feet, and not simply to prop up the goal of procreation…

 

[Nate13]

I’m not sure you’re entirely correct. I’m pretty sure that John Paul II wouldn’t agree with you – you might try checking out the Theology of the Body to see the emphasis that he places on the unitive aspect of marital sexuality, as a means of achieving one of the goals of marriage (hint: it’s not the goal of having children). Unity in marriage is a goal that stands on its own two feet, and not simply to prop up the goal of procreation…

I’m not de-emphasizing the role of the unitive purpose of marriage at all. The unitive function of sex is an imperative for human beings because God wishes for us to live as a family unit and the whole Trinitarian imagery.

My point was that there is no biological or spiritual reason for a man and a woman to bound together as they are through sex, if sex was inherently not procreative and was not a purpose of sex at all. How many animals can you find where their sexual organs are only geared towards unitiveness and are not procreative at all? You can find the opposite though where sex is not unitive barely at all, but is almost entirely geared towards procreation. Some animals only gain enough pleasure from sex to make them want to do it, but it is not binding at all. It serves no purpose in bringing the male and female together and binding them to form a family to raise the children.

The unitive purpose of sex hinges on the fact that there is a procreative purpose of sex in this respect, even though it is of incredible purpose in its own right.

Does this clarify what I’m saying?

I have read parts of Theology of the Body and have read Love and Responsibility. Also read lots of other sources. Theology of the Body was kind of dry for me and very word heavy. Love and Responsibility is the condensed version

We go after achieving the very worthy goal of binding ourselves to our spouse as one…for the sake of our children.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Purpose of sex:

1. procreative i.e continue the species and be apart of God’s Creation
2. unitive

Why is sex unitive? ---- To bring a man and woman in marriage closer together and bind them as one.

Why would God want a man and woman to become one in marriage? ---- To provide a stable foundation (a family) in which to raise the kids they have or will have or could possibly have.

**In other words sex is unitive for the sake of children first and foremost, not for the sake of the couple. If sex was not procreative, there would be no reason for sex to be unitive. ** You cannot argue the opposite. If sex was not unitive there would still be every reason for it to be procreative. We see this in animals actually that do not raise children in a family unit.

Thus the purpose of sex being unitive is children and the purpose of sex being procreative is children.

Sex is about children. Purposefully changing a woman’s or man’s fertility during the sexual act is a contradiction in and of itself to the purpose of sex even if you are having sex with more of the unitive function in mind.

Where did you get this? Is this your creation?
Your whole post, just plain wooooow.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’m not de-emphasizing the role of the unitive purpose of marriage at all. The unitive function of sex is an imperative for human beings because God wishes for us to live as a family unit and the whole Trinitarian imagery.

My point was that there is no biological or spiritual reason for a man and a woman to bound together as they are through sex, if sex was inherently not procreative and was not a purpose of sex at all. How many animals can you find where their sexual organs are only geared towards unitiveness and are not procreative at all? You can find the opposite though where sex is not unitive barely at all, but is almost entirely geared towards procreation. Some animals only gain enough pleasure from sex to make them want to do it, but it is not binding at all. It serves no purpose in bringing the male and female together and binding them to form a family to raise the children.

The unitive purpose of sex hinges on the fact that there is a procreative purpose of sex in this respect, even though it is of incredible purpose in its own right.

Does this clarify what I’m saying?

I have read parts of Theology of the Body and have read Love and Responsibility. Also read lots of other sources. Theology of the Body was kind of dry for me and very word heavy. Love and Responsibility is the condensed version

We go after achieving the very worthy goal of binding ourselves to our spouse as one…for the sake of our children.

Insensitive and ignorant. Go and preach this to the couples that can not have children.