What's wrong with contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JK8619
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JK8619

Guest
To start off, this is a question, not an argument.

I don’t understand the Church’s problem with contraception. As long as it is used by a married couple, I do not see the harm. I have seen the issue come up on posts here and some of the things I have heard sound a bit strange to me, including some of the positions held I read in the ask the apologist section. Some of the posts I have read from this site have said a women cannot use contraception even if a pregnancy would kill her or if a health condition made it impossible for a fetus to survive anyway.

Also, why is “natural family planning” ok? The ultimate goal is the same as contraception.

Lastly, is there a problem with a woman (married and sexually active) taking the pill for health reasons?
 
I don’t understand the Church’s problem with contraception. As long as it is used by a married couple, I do not see the harm.
Contraception is a disordered use of your sexual faculities. It harms your soul. Ask Onan about the harm-- God struck him dead for contracepting.

Conraception is an intrinsically evil action. Each act of intercourse must be both unitive and procreative.

I suggest you read Humanae Vitae.
]Some of the posts I have read from this site have said a women cannot use contraception even if a pregnancy would kill her or if a health condition made it impossible for a fetus to survive anyway.
That is correct. As I already stated, contraception is intrinsically evil. Therefore it is never moral.

A woman in this situation would be called to the level of abstinence she and her spouse were comfortable with: periodic through observation of the fertility cycle or complete abstinence.
Also, why is “natural family planning” ok? The ultimate goal is the same as contraception.
Ends and means are not the same thing. I suggest you read the Catechism on the fonts of morality.

Abstaining from intercourse is not immoral. That is what natural family planning is, abstaining periodically.

Abstaining is not the same as engaging in intercourse and sterilizing it through an action on your part.
Lastly, is there a problem with a woman (married and sexually active) taking the pill for health reasons?
It depends.

For that, I also suggest reading both Humanae Vitae and reading about the Principle of Double Effect. If the situation meets all of the critieria under the Principle of Double Effect one may take a medicaiton or receive a treatment that has the unintended side effect of temporary or permanent sterility.
 
Also, this is not a Traditional Catholocism topic. It belongs in the Morality forum. Don’t be suprised if this thread is locked. If so, start a new one in Morality.
 
This fear of children or viewing children as a burden is disordered but seems to be behind a lot of the thinking that leads people to disagree with us.

If you are married to a perosn you believe God has put in your life as your spouse and this is your vocation, why fear or avoid children?

You do bring up medical issues and those are another issue entirely and should be dealt with on a case by case basis discussing with your doctor and your priest.

Your feelings toward NFP are shared by some and this is the reason NFP is not required to be practiced. Some couples don’t bother with it and are merely open to life. That currently describes my husband and I but I suspect that because we got pregnant 5 months into marraige, I should give it a closer look.

Would I have liked to have a little longer with just my husband and I? Maybe. Do I believe this son of ours is God’s plan for us? Yes. I can’t wait to meet him! While pregnancy isn’t super fun, I can’t imagine that either of us after we finally get to meet Fred would trade him for more months together. That is really what it would be too. There can be no other Fred. It would be an entirely different person made from an entirely different combination of our genetic material.

The diffference between NFP and contraception is that in contraception you are still having sex just not properly. It cannot be fairly compared to a system in which a couple sacrificially abstains and still could get pregnant because they are performing the act properly on those supposedly infertile days.

Something I have read on this forum a few times that made a lot of sense to me is that contracepting is unnatural. It is like eating and then throwing up. You are only eating for the sake of tasting food not to nurture and sustain your body. You are missing the point of eating entirely or in this case missing the fullness of marital relations.
 
First of all, the pill causes abortifacient, so that pretty much answers that. Secondly, the Church teaches that each sex act should be procreative and unitive. Using a condom disrupts both of the natural functions of marital sex. You are right that abstaining isn’t procreative, but it also isn’t sex. You can’t misuse sex if you aren’t having it. I agree that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, which isn’t right, but it can be practiced within the teachings of the Church while ABC is intrinsicaly against the teachings of the Church.
 
Also, abstaining during fertile days is not procreative.
I’m abstaining right now. Presumably so are you. Abstaining from intercourse is not the same as engaging in it.

Any time a husband and wife **have **intercourse, it must be both unitive and procreative.

A husband and wife are free to not have intercourse as they see fit.
 
Also, just to add, procreative doesn’t mean it needs to result in a pregnancy, or even be likely to result in a pregnancy. Which is why its fine for infertile couples to get married. The problem is when you take the current fertile state of affairs and mess around with it to render it infertile. Abstaining is just a lack of an action, which in this case, is not morally obligatory, and so is not immoral. Having sex when infertile is also perfectly ok. The problem comes in when you take something that is currently working fine and mess around with it to remove some aspect which you don’t like/want, ie, fertility. I hope that helps explain it a little better. It iss definately one of the most difficult Church teachings to see, mostly because it is such a delicately nuanced understanding of sexuality, but oh so beautiful!!
 
To start off, this is a question, not an argument.

I don’t understand the Church’s problem with contraception. As long as it is used by a married couple, I do not see the harm. I have seen the issue come up on posts here and some of the things I have heard sound a bit strange to me, including some of the positions held I read in the ask the apologist section. Some of the posts I have read from this site have said a women cannot use contraception even if a pregnancy would kill her or if a health condition made it impossible for a fetus to survive anyway.

Also, why is “natural family planning” ok? The ultimate goal is the same as contraception.

Lastly, is there a problem with a woman (married and sexually active) taking the pill for health reasons?
There is no short answer. The full answer is here:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

In this document, Pope Paul VI outlines the proper use of the sexual faculty in marriages.

Natural Family Planning does not involve the purchase of artificial devices or pills, or self-sterilization. In a nutshell, it works with God’s plan.

The truth about marriage is this: the husband and wife to be agree, before the ceremony, that they will remain together for life and that having babies is part of the reason for their union.

Now, I was born in the mid-1950s and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. There was no birth control pill.

Unfortunately, many doctors prescribe the birth control pill for certain conditions for women. They, and I suspect a lot of Catholic women, are unaware that there are alternatives, natural alternatives to the birth control pill for a variety of conditions.

naprotechnology.com/

If I can help any further, let me know.

Peace,
Ed
 
Let’s look at the birth control pill in particular and how it was marketed to people. Remember, many things are sold as something “you need” to improve your appearance, for example, or enhance your appeal to the opposite sex. The Pill was approved by the FDA in 1960. Keep in mind that in that time period, most people lived on farms or rural areas. It wasn’t until 1967 that the marketing of The Pill began in earnest. And what was the benefit of The Pill? Freedom from fear. Fear of what? Babies.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

Read the first line:

“Contraception: Freedom from Fear”

The Catholic Church was aware that it would be under pressure about The Pill from dissidents inside and outside the Church, so when Pope Paul VI had Humanae Vitae published in 1968, they really, really protested. Bottom line, the companies that made The Pill had to sell product and they could not have the Catholic Church telling her flock that artificial contraception was bad, and lose sales.

Peace,
Ed
 
I still don’t completely understand, but the last two posts were helpful.
 
I am not going against the Church or God by saying this trust me. However why would sex be made so absolutely pleasurable yet you are only to have it a very minuscule amount of time, if you can only provide for one child then you get to have sex ONCE and that is it? Why can’t God have made it mildly pleasurable, why not make eating healthy foods and exercising be more pleasurable? Is it not in our better interests to do these things rather than have sex willy nilly?

It almost seems like a trap, there are so many ways to fall into sin just by this one act and barely anyways that it can go right. It is so easy to fall into temptation with this one act that it almost makes me mad. I will admit that masturbation is the sin that I fall into the most. Why is it that I rarely fall into any other temptation but it is this one?

If it weren’t for sex being pleasurable we would have more saints in my honest opinion.
 
I think you’ve misunderstood what it means for the act to be both unitive and procreative. The Church nowhere teaches that every act must aim at resulting in a pregnancy. What is not allowed is purposefully removing your fertility from the act itself. So there is nothing wrong with infertile couples having relations and there is nothing wrong with using the woman’s infertile periods to have sex.
 
I am not going against the Church or God by saying this trust me. However why would sex be made so absolutely pleasurable yet you are only to have it a very minuscule amount of time, if you can only provide for one child then you get to have sex ONCE and that is it?
Well, no, that is not what the Church teaches at all.
 
Contraception is a disordered use of your sexual faculities. It harms your soul. Ask Onan about the harm-- God struck him dead for contracepting.

Conraception is an intrinsically evil action. Each act of intercourse must be both unitive and procreative.
How is it different from intentionally knowing when a women’s infertile period is and having sex on those days with full intention of not conceiving? I agree that we shouldn’t be using abortifacents such as the pill or Plan B. But condoms and even withdrawal, how different is that to the intent of having sex only on infertile periods? The intention is the same, you are deliberately avoiding conception.
 
To start off, this is a question, not an argument.

I don’t understand the Church’s problem with contraception.
That’s because the Church does not have a problem with contraception. It is you who have a problem with the Church. Begin by examining your own fidelity to Catholicism, not Catholicism’s fidelity to you.
As long as it is used by a married couple, I do not see the harm.
What you and I see is irrelevant to God. God does not make laws based on our opinions. He is not an elected official and we are not his constituents. He builds laws into everything that he creates, including the sexual act. There are two laws the govern conception, meiosis and fertilization. Man did not create those laws. However, where there is a law, there is a lawgiver. Any action contrary to the law of the lawgiver is evil.
I have seen the issue come up on posts here and some of the things I have heard sound a bit strange to me, including some of the positions held I read in the ask the apologist section. Some of the posts I have read from this site have said a women cannot use contraception even if a pregnancy would kill her or if a health condition made it impossible for a fetus to survive anyway.
Just because it sounds strange to you, does not make it wrong. However, it is good to try to understand. Asking an apologist is a good start.

Let’s take your first point. Can a woman use contraception if there is the possibility that a pregnancy can kill her? The answer is NO she can not.

Why? There are many things in life that can potentially kill us, yet we don’t refrain from them by violating the law of God. We find other means. More people died as a result of AIDS and STDs than as a result of pregnancy. One would think that common sense would prevail and one would avoid that which would potentially put one at risk for AIDS or STDs. Yet, we circumvent with condoms. In other words, rather than avoiding that which may kill us, we find a way around natural law rather than work with it. Natural law is given to us by the law giver with the expectation that we comply, not as a challenge to see how many ways we can find around it.

Examine the term “contra - ception” short for “against conception”. It is a means used to allow us to engage in sexual activity at any time, while blocking the natural consequences of intercourse. In short, it is a means to be sexually active without consequences. In a dictionary, this is the definition of irresponsibility. If I eliminate the consequences, then I have no obligation to act responsibly. That’s a grave evil.

If we begin to eliminate consequences for our actions, we create an irresponsible existence. In that case, we deviate from the original plan of creation. God created man in his image and likeness. God is not an irresponsible being. We he irresponsible, he would not have become human in order to save that which he created. We have no moral right to be anything other than the image and likeness of God, responsible.
Also, why is “natural family planning” ok? The ultimate goal is the same as contraception.
The ultimate goal is not the same. Whoever told you this is gravely flawed. Even the language is different. Observe.

Natural: you are not interfering with nature. Abstaining from sex is not an interference with nature. I’m celibate. Am I interfering with nature? Mary and Joseph were celibate, as was Jesus. Was that unnatural? In this case, the couple is celibate for a few days a month.

While sex is a natural activity among animals, not having sex is not unnatural. Here lays the problem. Society has lied to us. It has turned sex into a need, just as one needs oxygen, water and nourishment. The fact is that less people die from celibacy than from sexual activity. Celibacy does not put you at risk for AIDS and other STDs. Celibate Catholic and Buddhist religious have the longest lifespan among all human beings on earth.

Family Planning: The reason for abstaining from sex is planning, not contraception. You are not acting against conception. You can’t act against conception, if you’re not involved in sexual activity. It is obvious that if you’re not involved in sexual activity there is no possibility of conception. To act against something, you must be involved in an act that normally leads to conception and you manipulate the circumstances so that you can engage in the act, without the end result, as we said before. In this case, you’re not engaging in the act that leads to conception. You’re choosing when you engage in sexual activity. That’s called planning. Your making that choice for the good of your family. Hence, it’s called family planning.

You know that there is remote chance of pregnancy in NFP, but you are prepared to take the consequences, even if that may be a high risk pregnancy. You are a responsible human being as is your Creator.

In addition, no medical doctor can guarantee that a woman will die if she becomes pregnant. At best, he can say that the risk is higher under certain circumstances. He is basing this information on statistics. We all know that statistics are not fool proof. Statistics can be very flawed when the method of research is not correct, the sample population is not representative of the norm, your sample population is not randomized, your math is flawed or when you deliberately skew the charts by eliminating those numbers that conflict with what you’re trying to sell to the general public. The US Government is the most famous for doing this. It invented corrupt statistical analysis. Read the writings of Albert Einstein. He charges the US Government with corruption his mathematical statistics to create the atom bomb. Read the writings of Marget Sengal,the founder of Planned Parenthood. She corrupts statistics to justify killing Negros by attrition.
Lastly, is there a problem with a woman (married and sexually active) taking the pill for health reasons?
A person, any person, can take any prescribed medication for a medical reason. This is a moral good. Pregnancy is not a disease. Therefore, taking medication to contracept, is a moral evil. The ends are evil.

Taking the same medication to regulate your cycle, to treat a polycystic ovary or other medical problems that interfere with normal healthy functions is a legitimate use. One must take the necessary precautions as one would with any other medication. The prolonged use of any medication can have side-effects You need to consult your physician or nurse practitioner.

If you want more information, my community deal in this kind of issue. You can go to our website and write to us. Just go to the vocations section and we will be happy to answer your questions. www.franciscansoflife.org . You can also go to usccb.org and click on family life. There is also www.sistersoflife.org or your local diocese has an office for family life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
That’s because the Church does not have a problem with contraception. It is you who have a problem with the Church. Begin by examining your own fidelity to Catholicism, not Catholicism’s fidelity to you.
Maybe my wording of the question wasn’t perfect, but it certainly did not warrant your rude comment. Why would you make such presumptions about my beliefs? I just asked for an explanation of the Church’s doctrine. When you are hostile towards someone who is asking a question in hope of understanding, you undermine your own credibility.
What you and I see is irrelevant to God. God does not make laws based on our opinions. He is not an elected official and we are not his constituents. He builds laws into everything that he creates, including the sexual act. There are two laws the govern conception, meiosis and fertilization. Man did not create those laws. However, where there is a law, there is a lawgiver. Any action contrary to the law of the lawgiver is evil.
Where in the Bible does is there anything about contraception? And don’t bring up Onan. That was not about contraception, that was about him not wanting his brother’s wife to have a male heir, so he could get her property.
The ultimate goal is not the same. Whoever told you this is gravely flawed. Even the language is different. Observe.

Natural: you are not interfering with nature. Abstaining from sex is not an interference with nature. I’m celibate. Am I interfering with nature? Mary and Joseph were celibate, as was Jesus. Was that unnatural? In this case, the couple is celibate for a few days a month.
The goals of contraception and NFP are both to avoid pregnancy. Also, the natural argument makes no sense. There are plenty of natural things that are not healthy and plenty of unnatural things that are.
You know that there is remote chance of pregnancy in NFP, but you are prepared to take the consequences, even if that may be a high risk pregnancy. You are a responsible human being as is your Creator.
What would you propose to a married couple that absolutely does not have the means to take care of a child for at least a few years? In a circumstance like that you can’t risk that NFP would work unless you were completely celibate for years. Would that be your solution?

Summary:
As far as I know the bible does not cover contraception and the natural/unnatural argument is completely flawed. The only thing I am really getting from these kind of replies is that contraception is “intrinsically evil” because the church says so.
 
The only thing I am really getting from these kind of replies is that contraception is “intrinsically evil” because the church says so.
Let’s take this then. This in itself is enough. The Church is always infallible in matters of faith and morals. Contraception is a moral issue.

The Church has the power to bind and unbind. The laity does not have that power, only Peter and his bishops.

What we say to a married couple is that they have no moral right to use contraception, because it is not natural. You can only use what is divinely revealed through nature. You are correct in that there are some things that are natural and are harmful. Even that is divinely revealed. God, created the laws of nature to be good. Man, though Original Sin called an imbalance in the cosmological order so that which God had created as perfectly good is now off balance.

The role of the Church is to sort out that which remains consistent with God’s original plan from that which is inconsistent with God’s original plan.

I go back to the original statement that you found to be rude, but it is not rude. It is the very first statement that you will hear if you enter a seminary. The Church does not have problems with moral law. When we find problems, it is we who have problems with the Church. In that case, it is we who have the moral duty to align our mind to that of the Church. Pope Benedict often uses the Latin expression, Sentire cum ecclesiam, to feel as the Church feels. That is the duty of every Catholic.

Not to attempt to align our mind with the mind of the Church is to create a rift between us and the Church, which is a slippery slope than can forfeit our salvation.

Even if all you get out of these answers is that contraception is evil because the Church says so, that should be enough for any Catholic who believes that the Church can never make a mistake in a moral law, because the Holy Spirit does not allow it.

In addition, not everything that we know about morality comes from the bible. Remember, we put the bible together. The Church existed long before the bible, about 400 years before. Prior to that, they were loose books here and there. It took monks centuries to sift through them and put together the bible as we know it today.

Much of our knowledge about moral absolutes was handed down to use from the apostles to their disciples whom we call the Church Fathers. Already, by the second generation, St. Polycarp, who was trained by St. John the Apostle was condemning the spilling of the seed, which was their way of describing withdrawal. And yes, Onan’s action was contraception. His motive was to avoid the male heir, but his method was contraceptive. He is not condemned for avoiding the male heir, but for he means he used.

Again, do not expect to find every answer to the dogma and morals in the bible. Revealed truth comes to us through three sources that work together: Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Magisterium. If you believe that God speaks only through the Bible and that the popes must use the Bible as their reference to be credible, then you’re not Catholic. You’re Protestant. Even the Orthodox do not subscribe to this.

All of the Apostolic Churches subscribe to the three means of Divine Revelation: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. In this case, the Magisterium has spoken repeatedly. Pope Paul VI simply put into writing what had been said for centuries. He expressed it more concisely. If you read Evangelium Vitae, by Bl. John Paul II, you will see it again. If you read St.Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas, you’ll find it there as well. Augustine and Aquinas do not have as much authority as Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, neither were popes, but they were eminent theologians. Once the pope gives his stamp of approval to a moral argument made by a theologian, that argument is infallible and irrefutable.

That leaves NFP as the only moral option.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top