What's so bad about contraception, anyway?

[fix]

Well, you seem to forget that God’s commands to love God and to love your neighbor are above the natural law.

No, this is not accurate. These truths do not contradict each other.

Self preservation instinct is one of the biggest if not the biggest natural law.

Instinct is not the natural moral law.

Jesus left this natural law behind on the cross.
Maximilian Kolbe left this natural law behind in the camp. People who do this are regarded as saints by the Church.

laying down your life for another does not contradict the natural moral law.

HV says that all contraception (even non abortive) is wrong because it contradicts moral order, it contradicts natural law. What natural law? Procreation.
Wait a minute, clergy celibacy leaves this natural law behind as well and it does not contradicts moral order. Do you know why? Love God and love your neighbor.

Celibacy does not contradict the natural moral law.

Going against natural law does not break the God’s moral order if you do it in order to follow God’s love commands.
The issue can not be that the non abortive contraception goes against natural law and contradicts moral order because celibacy does the same.
The issue then becomes only how you do it.

You want to read what the CCC says about natural moral law. It is not what you claim here.

So how? The HV say through the NFP and the abstinence.
But what if NFP does not work for everybody? Well, then too bad you are supposed to follow the abstinence.
Here comes my second argument that the abstinence is not morally sound for all the couples because it does not pass double effect principle.

How does the principle of double effect fit in here?

Another point of view: the abstinence is tough for the clergy when they go to bed alone but married couples are supposed to go to bed with loved one next them and they are supposed to follow the abstinence? That’s what I call torture.

Where does grace fit in your understanding?

 

[Nate13]

Well, you seem to forget that God’s commands to love God and to love your neighbor are above the natural law.

Self preservation instinct is one of the biggest if not the biggest natural law.
Jesus left this natural law behind on the cross.
Maximilian Kolbe left this natural law behind in the camp. People who do this are regarded as saints by the Church.

No, they realize the fullness of the Truth behind natural law that can only be had when it is looked at from the perspective that God exists. If God did not exist it would be irrational for someone to lay down their life for another person. He does exist though and that is a realization that we can come to through pure God-given reason. Human kind is naturally drawn to God by intent.

Lets look at the difference between suicide and laying down our life for another:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

Our lives are not ours to dispose of, but they are God’s to dispose of for the good of another if that is his will. Jesus laid down an example of self-sacrifice in accordance with his Father’s will. His act showed an increase in the value he saw in every human life that he gave his up for. It was completely self-less. Suicide is when we kill ourselves for our own supposed gain.

This leads to my point here. Jesus’ act increased or at least upheld the dignity of every human person out there. That is love. Love and Responsibility argues that contraception does the exact opposite of that. The entire first Chapter dives in to how using a contraceptive objectively makes the other person an object and devalues their person-hood. There is no way I can explain this as well as JPII though, so all I can say is go read Love and Responsibility because it argues against saying choosing to use a contraceptive is ever a loving act.

HV says that all contraception (even non abortive) is wrong because it contradicts moral order, it contradicts natural law. What natural law? Procreation.
Wait a minute, clergy celibacy leaves this natural law behind as well and it does not contradicts moral order. Do you know why? Love God and love your neighbor.

Clergy don’t have sex. We have already had this discussion. Would you ever argue that clergy choosing not to have sex is a selfish act? No, its a completely self-less act done out of love of God and for his glory. Any act done out of “love of God” that you have given as an example is a completely self-less act with full focus on God that does not impair the dignity of the human person. Using contraception never meets this requirement and actually works to contradict it.

Going against natural law does not break the God’s moral order if you do it in order to follow God’s love commands… (and uphold the dignity of the human person.)
The issue can not be that the non abortive contraception goes against natural law and contradicts moral order because celibacy does the same.
The issue then becomes only how you do it.

No. Celibacy never acts against it, it just never acts at all, out of a selfless love of God. Homosexual acts are an example of acting against it.

So how? The HV say through the NFP and the abstinence.
But what if NFP does not work for everybody? Well, then too bad you are supposed to follow the abstinence.
Here comes my second argument that the abstinence is not morally sound for all the couples because it does not pass double effect principle.

99.9% of people can use some form of NFP given enough time and effort. How does it meet that principle? The only way would be if you could show you had an inescapable choice between two evils and the opposing choice to using contraception would have to be a greater evil. Divorce is the only thing that gets even close to meeting this requirement for possibly applying this principle.

Another point of view: the abstinence is tough for the clergy when they go to bed alone but married couples are supposed to go to bed with loved one next them and they are supposed to follow the abstinence? That’s what I call torture.

1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.

Good thing God is there to give us the gifts we need to do it. There is the love of God your looking for.

 

[Jaaanosik]

**No, this is not accurate. These truths do not contradict each other.

Instinct is not the natural moral law.**

laying down your life for another does not contradict the natural moral law.

Celibacy does not contradict the natural moral law.

You want to read what the CCC says about natural moral law. It is not what you claim here.

How does the principle of double effect fit in here?

Where does grace fit in your understanding?

The self preservation is such a strong natural law that CCC says:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: …

How does it relate to the fifth commandment?

 

[fix]

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

 

[fix]

The self preservation is such a strong natural law that CCC says:

How does it relate to the fifth commandment?

The issue is not self preservation. The issue is using the word “instinct”. The natural moral law is right reason. Not biology.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No, they realize the fullness of the Truth behind natural law that can only be had when it is looked at from the perspective that God exists. If God did not exist it would be irrational for someone to lay down their life for another person. He does exist though and that is a realization that we can come to through pure God-given reason. Human kind is naturally drawn to God by intent.

Lets look at the difference between suicide and laying down our life for another:

Our lives are not ours to dispose of, but they are God’s to dispose of for the good of another if that is his will. Jesus laid down an example of self-sacrifice in accordance with his Father’s will. His act showed an increase in the value he saw in every human life that he gave his up for. It was completely self-less. Suicide is when we kill ourselves for our own supposed gain.

This leads to my point here. Jesus’ act increased or at least upheld the dignity of every human person out there. That is love. Love and Responsibility argues that contraception does the exact opposite of that. The entire first Chapter dives in to how using a contraceptive objectively makes the other person an object and devalues their person-hood. There is no way I can explain this as well as JPII though, so all I can say is go read Love and Responsibility because it argues against saying choosing to use a contraceptive is ever a loving act.

Clergy don’t have sex. We have already had this discussion. Would you ever argue that clergy choosing not to have sex is a selfish act? No, its a completely self-less act done out of love of God and for his glory. Any act done out of “love of God” that you have given as an example is a completely self-less act with full focus on God that does not impair the dignity of the human person. Using contraception never meets this requirement and actually works to contradict it.

No. Celibacy never acts against it, it just never acts at all, out of a selfless love of God. Homosexual acts are an example of acting against it.

99.9% of people can use some form of NFP given enough time and effort. How does it meet that principle? The only way would be if you could show you had an inescapable choice between two evils and the opposing choice to using contraception would have to be a greater evil. Divorce is the only thing that gets even close to meeting this requirement for possibly applying this principle.

Good thing God is there to give us the gifts we need to do it. There is the love of God your looking for.

The natural law commands you to self preserve.
The natural law commands you to procreate.
It is not natural to do otherwise.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The issue is not self preservation. The issue is using the word “instinct”. The natural moral law is right reason. Not biology.

The self preservation instinct is a manifestation of the self preservation natural law.
Are you happy now?

 

[Nate13]

The natural law commands you self preserve.
The natural law commands you procreate.
It is not natural to do otherwise.

Those are urges. Luckily we have also been given reason so we can determine the designed purposes of those urges and can act in accordance with them and their true purposes. We were created with the ability to reason and thus you cannot look at any instinct and look at it outside our ability to reason.

 

[Nate13]

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

Natural law is not just urges its right human reason which sees the urge and looks at the entirety of God’s plan and sees the purpose of that urge as it was designed.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Those are urges. Luckily we have also been given reason so we can determine the designed purposes of those urges and can act in accordance with them and their true purposes. We were created with the ability to reason and thus you cannot look at any instinct and look at it outside our ability to reason.

Were the urges are coming from? Do they represent the natural laws or they exist by itself?

All I am asking is a fair ground for reasoning.

 

[Nate13]

Were the urges are coming from? Do they represent the natural laws or they exist by itself?

All I am asking is a fair ground for reasoning.

I think your thinking of the concept of natural law in a slightly skewed way. I do not think of it as laws I think of it as a law. The law being we are to act in accord with right human reason. This one law has a trickle down effect as to what it means in our lives. It does not make sense to look at one particular piece of the puzzle by itself and declare that is the Truth. I have to look at an urge in the scope of the entire human person and the fact that God has created us in his image and likeness. Divine Revelation in the scriptures and the Church also helps us more clearly see why God has designed us the way he did. Having this Revelation is a plus to seeing the Truth, but the Church has said that much of the Truth can still be found without even knowing Divine Revelation which makes sense considering for quite awhile humanity did not have much of the Revelation we have today.

What you have been doing by declaring that we have a urge to procreate and therefore must procreate is essentially the same as taking a piece of the Constitution and doing the same. For example it would be like if you took the clause of the Constitution where it says we have a right to bear arms, and then insisted you had a right to carry around a machine gun in public. This particular clause has to be looked at from the scope of the whole Constitution and its original purpose.

You have to ask yourself “why do we have the right to bear arms?” Why did the founders put that in the Constitution? Then once you have looked at the original purpose and intent of the founders you can see why we do not have a right to carry a machine gun in public and this is not what they were going for.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I think your thinking of the concept of natural law in a slightly skewed way. I do not think of it as laws I think of it as a law. The law being we are to act in accord with right human reason. This one law has a trickle down effect as to what it means in our lives. It does not make sense to look at one particular piece of the puzzle by itself and declare that is the Truth. I have to look at an urge in the scope of the entire human person and the fact that God has created us in his image and likeness. Divine Revelation in the scriptures and the Church also helps us more clearly see why God has designed us the way he did. Having this Revelation is a plus to seeing the Truth, but the Church has said that much of the Truth can still be found without even knowing Divine Revelation which makes sense considering for quite awhile humanity did not have much of the Revelation we have today.

What you have been doing by declaring that we have a urge to procreate and therefore must procreate is essentially the same as taking a piece of the Constitution and doing the same. For example it would be like if you took the clause of the Constitution where it says we have a right to bear arms, and then insisted you had a right to carry around a machine gun in public. This particular clause has to be looked at from the scope of the whole Constitution and its original purpose.

You have to ask yourself “why do we have the right to bear arms?” Why did the founders put that in the Constitution? Then once you have looked at the original purpose and intent of the founders you can see why we do not have a right to carry a machine gun in public and this is not what they were going for.

The natural law to procreate. It is good to procreate. We can reason all day about procreation.
Please, show me how it can be natural not to procreate. If everybody reasoned I am not going to procreate and they stood by the decision. Would it be natural?

 

[fix]

This is from the old CE:

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation and love of offspring.In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.

… In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

The norm, however, of conduct is not some particular element or aspect of our nature. The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with thatrational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD). For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong…

You may want to consider reading the entire piece.

 

[Nate13]

The natural law to procreate. It is good to procreate. We can reason all day about procreation.
Please, show me how it can be natural not to procreate. If everybody reasoned I am not going to procreate and they stood by the decision. Would it be natural?

Haha lets start with why celibacy can be in accord with human reason.

New International Version (NIV)
1 Corinthians 7

Concerning Married Life
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

I quote this because I believe its a good start for figuring out why celibacy is in accord with human reason i.e natural law. St. Paul says a man and woman can abstain under the pretense of devoting time to prayer or in other words being intimate with God. Its very clear that St. Paul believes that it would be best if everyone could devote all their time to becoming intimate with God through prayer and not be distracted by worldly desires.

This is in accord for one very simple reason: Intimacy with God is what we are all called too. The most fundamental Truth of being human is the search for God and the need to bring ourselves closer to Him. Divine Revelation through the Bible and the Church hammers this point home. Our hearts cry out for God and it is utterly wrong to claim that celibacy goes against natural law. Some might even argue its the most sensible thing and most in accord thing to do since intimacy with God is what humans strive for above all, and it makes sense that a person would want the fewest distractions from doing so.

However once we are married and enter that covenant we can no longer apply ourselves blindly to this goal because we have given our bodies, time, and treasure to our spouse. Marriage though is just a different form from which humans seek God. In the union of spouses we work in union with God in a way that celibate priests cannot, which is through the union of spouses in sex when a new life is created.

Thus both routes have their purposes and we are taught that neither road is better than the other, although Paul seems to prefer his route Remember though, he is also the guy that gives the beautiful imagery of how the love between spouses is supposed to mirror the love of Christ and the Church.

This verse hits it home though:

Matthew 19:12
King James Version (KJV)
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Haha lets start with why celibacy can be in accord with human reason.

I quote this because I believe its a good start for figuring out why celibacy is in accord with human reason i.e natural law. St. Paul says a man and woman can abstain under the pretense of devoting time to prayer or in other words being intimate with God. Its very clear that St. Paul believes that it would be best if everyone could devote all their time to becoming intimate with God through prayer and not be distracted by worldly desires.

This is in accord for one very simple reason: Intimacy with God is what we are all called too. The most fundamental Truth of being human is the search for God and the need to bring ourselves closer to Him. Divine Revelation through the Bible and the Church hammers this point home. Our hearts cry out for God and it is utterly wrong to claim that celibacy goes against natural law. Some might even argue its the most sensible thing and most in accord thing to do since intimacy with God is what humans strive for above all, and it makes sense that a person would want the fewest distractions from doing so.

However once we are married and enter that covenant we can no longer apply ourselves blindly to this goal because we have given our bodies, time, and treasure to our spouse. Marriage though is just a different form from which humans seek God. In the union of spouses we work in union with God in a way that celibate priests cannot, which is through the union of spouses in sex when a new life is created.

Thus both routes have their purposes and we are taught that neither road is better than the other, although Paul seems to prefer his route Remember though, he is also the guy that gives the beautiful imagery of how the love between spouses is supposed to mirror the love of Christ and the Church.

This verse hits it home though:

Matthew 19:12
King James Version (KJV)
12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Quoting Bible and saying it’s natural? Are you sure?
The reasoning about celibacy in the Bible is according to God’s revelation. It is not natural.
Reasoning and changing values based on the Bible is not natural all the time.

Please, show me how not to procreate is natural.

 

[Geist]

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?

Yep. Ask a deaf guy to describe any musical piece for you. Let me know how informative it is.

Find out how much you learn when an auto parts salesman is teaching an organic chemistry course.

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 do not think men should be ob/gyns, and thats something quite a few women think as well.

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.

Thats nice.

You don’t have to be on each other every minute of every day to be totally in love and crazy about each other.

Who said one did? All that chaffing…no thanks.

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.

OK.

 

[Geist]

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.

Good for them. Stop trying to ram it down everyone’s throats.

Your still also not addressing the issue directly and instead blaming the teaching on who it is coming from.

Actually, I did. Its not as effective as medical and/or surgical contraception and never will be.

There are Protestant churches that also recognize this teaching as well and they have married pastors so your argument falls flat as well.

I don’t recall mentioning Protestant churches at all, how does something I didn’t mention render my argument flat?

Your inability to appreciate NFP though makes more sense when you also don’t appreciate the reasons for celibacy.

I don’t appreciate it because its needlessly complex and there is no justification for its burdens when much better means are available today.

The doctrinal argument is also nonexistent, you are still engaging in a method to enjoy sex without procreation, just now the way a bunch of celibate men say is “ok”.

But theres still the possibility for procreation with NFP! Well, if a pill or procedure is 99% effective, theres still the possibility there too, so it is morally indefensible to favor one method over the other when both allow consequence free sex lets say 99% of the time.

If you like playing with cervical mucus so much, keep it to yourself.

 

[Nate13]

Good for them. Stop trying to ram it down everyone’s throats.

Lol I don’t see much ramming. Rarely ever mentioned in sermons, and a couple papal encyclicals. The Church teaches the Truth. Did you consider your teachers at school who taught you math to be ramming it down your throat? The Church is teaching as it supposed to teach.

Actually, I did. Its not as effective as medical and/or surgical contraception and never will be.

Only I showed it was more effective. Conservatively using NFP is more effective than a tubal ligation for certain. You could possibly say its as effective as a vasectomy. If pregnancy = imminent death though its seems based on the numbers that having sex while solely depending on a tubal ligation is about as safe as being a soldier in Iraq.

I don’t recall mentioning Protestant churches at all, how does something I didn’t mention render my argument flat?

There are Protestant churches that have married pastors who are teaching the same as the Catholic Church is on contraception.

I don’t appreciate it because its needlessly complex and there is no justification for its burdens when much better means are available today.

Well its just reason based in knowledge of God’s existence. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see that the unitive purpose of sex only serves a purpose in biology because sex is also procreative by nature. It gets obtusely complex when people refuse to look at it from the right perspective and get caught up in the fact that their are infertile couples or people that are impotent. We recognize these are times when something has gone wrong because we know what is right. I think science makes it pretty clear as well, since we call all that down there the reproductive system.

The doctrinal argument is also nonexistent, you are still engaging in a method to enjoy sex without procreation, just now the way a bunch of celibate men say is “ok”.

Its utilitarianism vs personalism though. One method objectively treats a person/s as an object and the other objectively treats a person as a person.

But theres still the possibility for procreation with NFP! Well, if a pill or procedure is 99% effective, theres still the possibility there too, so it is morally indefensible to favor one method over the other when both allow consequence free sex lets say 99% of the time.

I addressed this awhile back and this line of thinking gets you no where. By your reasoning its alright for me to strap 200 pounds of weights to my back and jump in the ocean if there is a 0.00001% chance I will live, and I can say it wasn’t suicide. I can say I was open to life but we both know that’s hogwash. I purposefully altered the act so that I wouldn’t live. NFP does nothing to alter the act itself. I don’t care if you don’t see why this difference is important but its an important first step to at least acknowledge this difference.

If you like playing with cervical mucus so much, keep it to yourself.

haha I’m sensing some resentment and there are temperature only methods…

Yep. Ask a deaf guy to describe any musical piece for you. Let me know how informative it is.

Find out how much you learn when an auto parts salesman is teaching an organic chemistry course.

The Pope is really teaching philosophy and moral theology. Do you really question his abilities there? JPII had quite a resume.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Thanks for your help.

I understand the Catholic position better now.

Interesting discussion!

 

[Bobby_Jim]

My 2 cents, for what it’s worth. If you are trying to have this discussion with someone who, for whatever reason, doesn’t buy the Church’s teaching on the matter.

To my knowledge, all forms of contraception are either:
(a) not terribly effective long-term (this would include “barriers” such as condoms, spermicides, etc),
(b) pose possible long-term or acute health risks (this would include various forms of birth control pills and implantable devices), and/or
(c) are potentially or definitely “abortifacient” (result in death of a newly conceived child, as opposed to being truly “contraceptive” as in preventing sperm and egg from uniting). This certainly includes IUD (this is the primary mechanism of action), and may include some if not most forms of hormone pills, implantable devices, etc as at least a secondary mechanism of action. Then there are methods that are
(d) “permanent” (i.e. vascectomy, tubal ligation, or various other means of sterilization.

I would consider anything that falls into category (c) automatically off the table. Even if you don’t believe the church on the moral ills of contraception, most people should recognize an abortifacient as fundamentally different from preventing conception. These days you never know, since some people are ok with abortion at any time for any reason, but it should be self-evident that this is wrong. And by itself that rules out a lot of the popular contraceptive methods.

I would be very uncomfortable with (a) or (b), considering that in actual long-term use NFP probably has similar or better long-term success than condoms, and carries absolutely no health risks. My personal experience with NFP does not bear out the supposed 99+% rate of avoiding pregnancy, but that’s a different story [guess I’m part of the 1% a few times over, not that I’m complaining!] As for category (d), sterilization, well obviously that’s not an option unless you are really really sure that you will never change your mind.

Again let me state these are purely “secular” reasons. The church’s teaching is what it is, and rules all of these out for other reasons. The theology behind it is beautiful and well reasoned, if, in my opinion, somewhat theoretical. But there are people who will automatically dismiss it, purely because it is Catholic, and either they feel that makes it automatically wrong, or at least highly suspect, or at the very least that it doesn’t apply to non-Catholics. So it’s good to have some purely practical reasons.