What's wrong with contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JK8619
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A few people have mentioned it before, but I highly recommend listening to Janet Smith’s talk, Contraception, Why Not?!! It’s a gift to anyone who is struggling with the Church’s teaching on contraception. Janet Smith does amazing work.
 
There is profane conception. And profane conception is what defines profane or sacred marriage. So marriage hallows, sets apart as holy, this sacred unitive/procreative act. We are not to conceive with near-relatives so we are not to marry near-relatives. Marriages with multiple partners are a health “sin” so the LDS = SOL. The disease vectors are staggering. “God hates divorce.” Yet ours is a serial marriage culture, divorcing and remarrying. Or just shacking up if the disability payments or other government perks carry a marriage penalty…

Today we are not an agricultural economy and don’t need that butter-fat daughter to get up at four a.m. and chop the ice off the pond in the winter so the cows can drink. We want sex de-linked from marriage, and children de-linked from sex. Voila! Gay marriage. Serial marriage serves the cannibal economy well.

Conception takes $250,000 in lifetime child-rearing expense out of the cannibal economy and pays it to farmers and teachers and doctors for food, education and health care. Cannibals must eat, too. The cannibal economy is feeding off the crash of the culture. Now two refrigerators where one was needed; two couches where one sufficed; a steady cash stream for the lawyers; full employment for the prison guards and government bureaucrats who serve the socially alienated where once the Church served the “we are” family. Cannibals sell us pricey security devices where once a ball-bat under dad’s bed sufficed.

Estrogen rates in males are rising from: animal products fattened on the same estrogen implants shoved under a woman’s skin; phyto-estrogens from plant sources like marijuana and soy; and xeno-estrogens from fractionated petroleum hydrocarbons; and contraceptive hormone-tainted drinking water ; and careless antibiotic use with estrogen-producing gut yeast flourishing as friendly gut flora is killed. All this estrogen serves to plump up that manly decolletage. Males with high estrogen levels show higher aggression towards women. That “high testosterone” myth is bogus. So this estrogen-rich she-male is not only unattracted to woman, he is aggressive towards the woman. Hence the past laws allowing abortion provided by non-M.D.'s have now been re-introduced; when the standard of care for the crown jewels for, say, a medically simpler vasectomy would never allow such disrespect. And the steadily declining testosterone rate in males–half that of grandpa’s–greases the skids of the cannibal economy as Madison Avenue markets to the self-indulgent baby-man who has already been happily, chemically, demi-castrated. Go home to mama.
 
The Church is always infallible in matters of faith and morals.
I have a hard time understanding this idea too. It appears that maybe the Church has done immoral things in the past and that it has also contradicted itself. I am not trying to attack Catholic doctrine, I am trying to understand it.

Examples:
  1. The crusades were immoral, but were supported by the church.
  2. For quite awhile it was ok for clergy to marry. Now it is considered immoral. Something like that isn’t just moral one day and then not the next.
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.
As I have said several times, I am trying to learn the few things that I do not understand.
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.
I thought the Catholic Church believed in free will. Does church believe that the holy spirit controls the Pope and bishops, or does the church believe that they have free will.
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.
It was contraception, but that was not why he was condemned.
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.
What if you do believe that Popes and bishops are generally instruments of God, but that they are not infallible?

I will remind you again because you do not seem to understand that these are not arguments, but questions to help better understand Catholic doctrine. I hope you or someone else can answer these questions.
 
I think you misunderstand the Church’s standpoint?The Church does not have a problem with contraception,but quite simply,upholds the laws of God.The appetite for sex is ordained to the preservation of the life of the race.The pleasure attached to the indulgence of sensual passion is but secondary and in view of the primary purpose,the production of children.Contraception satisfies passion for the sake of passion and violates the moral order established by God.

The use of marital privileges(the marriage act)together with the deliberate frustration of the justifying purpose is but reciprocal vice.This is not an ecclesiastical law,but a divine law.No one on earth can dispense man from it.The Catholic Church is not here to allow God’s laws to be broken,but to see that they are kept.The Church does not center and alter to suit the desires of man,but of God.The Church cannot force all her subjects to observe the law,even as God does not force all people to keep other commandments of moral obligation.

If a doctor rules that a woman will die from any further conception.In such a case the moral theology of the Church says that a wife is justified in refusing “marital privileges” to her husband and he has an obligation to practise self-restraint and continence,thinking more of his wife than of himself.

If a catholic woman gives birth knowing she will die,and the disposition of her heart is “rather die than offend God” this woman is a hero amongst heroes and understands her faith well and what is required to serve God until the end.I know of one case(18 years ago) where this very scenario played out,God bless her.Read what St Paul and our Lord say about it a well.
 
I think you misunderstand the Church’s standpoint?The Church does not have a problem with contraception,but quite simply,upholds the laws of God.The appetite for sex is ordained to the preservation of the life of the race.The pleasure attached to the indulgence of sensual passion is but secondary and in view of the primary purpose,the production of children.Contraception satisfies passion for the sake of passion and violates the moral order established by God.

The use of marital privileges(the marriage act)together with the deliberate frustration of the justifying purpose is but reciprocal vice.This is not an ecclesiastical law,but a divine law.No one on earth can dispense man from it.The Catholic Church is not here to allow God’s laws to be broken,but to see that they are kept.The Church does not center and alter to suit the desires of man,but of God.The Church cannot force all her subjects to observe the law,even as God does not force all people to keep other commandments of moral obligation.

If a doctor rules that a woman will die from any further conception.In such a case the moral theology of the Church says that a wife is justified in refusing “marital privileges” to her husband and he has an obligation to practise self-restraint and continence,thinking more of his wife than of himself.

If a catholic woman gives birth knowing she will die,and the disposition of her heart is “rather die than offend God” this woman is a hero amongst heroes and understands her faith well and what is required to serve God until the end.I know of one case(18 years ago) where this very scenario played out,God bless her.Read what St Paul and our Lord say about it as well.
 
40.png
JReducation:
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.
JK,

I came here after reading your other post about rudeness/civility, and yeah, I see where you’re coming from. JR’s post would have been more easily swallowed if it wasn’t tied up in something that appears to be an attack on you.

Perhaps JR thought that you were saying, “the Church says X and I don’t believe it”, even though you say upfront that you have a question.

In any case, you’re asking a ton of questions. Many of them aren’t “Basic Arithmetic”, but rather, “Advanced Calculus”; that is, there’s a lot to be understood as background and context before you can fully grasp the reasons for the Church’s teaching. You might consider starting with just one question, rather than a whole bunch of them (contraception, NFP, infallibility, priestly celibacy, free will, etc). See what I mean? Moreover, when you mention a stumbling block with a Church teaching, I’ve noticed that you sometimes provide a rationale; yet, this rationale, itself, misunderstands the Church. (For instance, when you mentioned NFP, you stated that it has the same goals as contraception. That in itself is incorrect.) So, it might be better to ask questions as questions, rather than stating your questions as facts… and also, sticking to one question at a time.

The fact that you’re looking for answers is good. The fact that you’re looking to understand Church teaching is great! Take a deep breath, relax, and start working at the answers, one at a time, and I promise you’ll get there. (Maybe not by using this site as your one-and-only reference, but there’s a lot of good information that can be found here. It can be a great starting point, leading you on your way!)
 
  1. The crusades were immoral, but were supported by the church.
The crusades were not immoral.
  1. For quite awhile it was ok for clergy to marry. Now it is considered immoral. Something like that isn’t just moral one day and then not the next.
Clergy have never been allowed to marry. Married men have been allowed to become clergy. And still are in Eastern rites of the Church. This is not a matter of morality, but of discipline.
Does church believe that the holy spirit controls the Pope and bishops, or does the church believe that they have free will.
They have free will for their personal actions, but the Holy Spirit protects divine revelation (the deposit of faith) and so prevents them from making the error of teaching untruth as truth. Thanks be to God.
It was contraception, but that was not why he was condemned.
Then you interpret Scripture differently than the Church.
What if you do believe that Popes and bishops are generally instruments of God, but that they are not infallible?
Perhaps study infallibility and realize that it does not mean that the Pope and Bishops will be free from sin, but that the Holy Spirit protects the deposit of faith from the errors of men.
 
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.
The object, end, and circumstances must ALL be moral.

The means of engaging in sexual relations while disordering those relations are NOT morally equivalent to abstaining from relations. We may choose to engage in relations or not, but if we choose to do so we must not disorder the act. We must not separate the unitive and procreative elements inherent in the act. Refraining from the act respects the unitive and procreative elements. Engaging in it while attempting to sterilize it does not.
 
I think you misunderstand the Church’s standpoint?The Church does not have a problem with contraception,but quite simply,upholds the laws of God.The appetite for sex is ordained to the preservation of the life of the race.The pleasure attached to the indulgence of sensual passion is but secondary and in view of the primary purpose,the production of children.Contraception satisfies passion for the sake of passion and violates the moral order established by God.

The use of marital privileges(the marriage act)together with the deliberate frustration of the justifying purpose is but reciprocal vice.This is not an ecclesiastical law,but a divine law.No one on earth can dispense man from it.The Catholic Church is not here to allow God’s laws to be broken,but to see that they are kept.The Church does not center and alter to suit the desires of man,but of God.The Church cannot force all her subjects to observe the law,even as God does not force all people to keep other commandments of moral obligation.
This is a good explanation, but it still doesn’t answer the question I asked. If you say that the appetite for sex is ordained for the preservation of life of the race, why then is NFP allowed by the Church? You have full knowledge and full intent of not conceiving. So how different is it from withdrawal method or using a condom? I will exempt all other ABCs here that are abortifacents such as the pill because there is a bigger issue there other than just preventing conception.
 
Examples:
  1. The crusades were immoral, but were supported by the church.
The crusades were not immoral. Individual people did immoral things while fighting in th crusades. furthermore, the crusades were not a matter of faith or morals. they were a matter of defense.
  1. For quite awhile it was ok for clergy to marry. Now it is considered immoral. Something like that isn’t just moral one day and then not the next.
This is not a matter of morals at all. It is not considered “immoral”, it is a matter of Church law. It seems you are not distinguishing correctly between disciplines of Church law and doctrines of faith and morals.
I thought the Catholic Church believed in free will. Does church believe that the holy spirit controls the Pope and bishops, or does the church believe that they have free will.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error. Christ promised us the truth, that we may know it with certainty.
It was contraception, but that was not why he was condemned.
uh, yeah, it was.
What if you do believe that Popes and bishops are generally instruments of God, but that they are not infallible?
Then you have a bigger problem than contraception. You basically believe that Christ promised us the Truth, that we must follow that truth (our salvation depends upon knowing it, after all), but that we have no way to know it because we have no protection from error.
 
This is a good explanation, but it still doesn’t answer the question I asked. If you say that the appetite for sex is ordained for the preservation of life of the race, why then is NFP allowed by the Church? You have full knowledge and full intent of not conceiving.
Because the intent to space children is not itself immoral.
So how different is it from withdrawal method or using a condom?
Because the means by which you achieve the end of spacing children matters. One means is moral, the other is not.
 
The object, end, and circumstances must ALL be moral.

The means of engaging in sexual relations while disordering those relations are NOT morally equivalent to abstaining from relations. We may choose to engage in relations or not, but if we choose to do so we must not disorder the act. We must not separate the unitive and procreative elements inherent in the act. Refraining from the act respects the unitive and procreative elements. Engaging in it while attempting to sterilize it does not.
I think you missed my point. NFP is not all abstinence. A woman is fertile about 5 days a month, which means you can have sex the other 25 days. This is not abstinence vs. withdrawal and condoms. I am asking, why does the Church allow us to use NFP which entails having sex on days you know the woman is not fertile? There is nothing procreative about that, it is a deliberate act to avoid conception. There is will and intent to avoid conception. How it is different from, say, withdrawal method?
 
40.png
ConstantineTG:
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?
Refraining from the act respects the unitive and procreative elements. Engaging in it while attempting to sterilize it does not.
Just to tag onto KE’s response:

Notice that, if a couple has intercourse during the wife’s “infertile period”, they might still end up pregnant – there might be an egg still present, or the man’s sperm might still be present and viable when the next “fertile period” comes along. Having sex at that time, even if the intention is that pregnancy not take place, is still open to the procreative aspect of marriage. Taking deliberate steps to medically kill any possibilities for procreation, such as the pill or condoms, are a whole 'nother ballgame.
 
And condoms and withdrawal allows you to do that.
See the Church’s teachings on the fonts of morality. It is not the intent alone that determines morality. The object, the ends, and the circumstances together form a unity.

The means of engaging in the sexual act while corrupting it through contracetion is NOT a moral means to the end.

Abstaining is.
 
I think you missed my point. NFP is not all abstinence. A woman is fertile about 5 days a month, which means you can have sex the other 25 days. This is not abstinence vs. withdrawal and condoms. I am asking, why does the Church allow us to use NFP which entails having sex on days you know the woman is not fertile? There is nothing procreative about that, it is a deliberate act to avoid conception. There is will and intent to avoid conception. How it is different from, say, withdrawal method?
Because you do not alter the act. You engage in it fully. The same reason a couple past menopause can engage in the act at all. Because it is not immoral to engage in a completed act of intercourse at any time. It is not immoral to abstain at any time. It is immoral to engage in an incomplete act every time (incomplete= deliberately contracepted so that the natural full ends of the act are disrupted).
 
Just to tag onto KE’s response:

Notice that, if a couple has intercourse during the wife’s “infertile period”, they might still end up pregnant – there might be an egg still present, or the man’s sperm might still be present and viable when the next “fertile period” comes along. Having sex at that time, even if the intention is that pregnancy not take place, is still open to the procreative aspect of marriage. Taking deliberate steps to medically kill any possibilities for procreation, such as the pill or condoms, are a whole 'nother ballgame.
Condoms aren’t 100%, neither is the withdrawal method.
 
Okay, I have to go to a picnic, now. I’ll continue with this tonight. 😉
 
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.
Well said.
 
I have a hard time understanding this idea too. It appears that maybe the Church has done immoral things in the past and that it has also contradicted itself. I am not trying to attack Catholic doctrine, I am trying to understand it.

Examples:
  1. The crusades were immoral, but were supported by the church.
  2. For quite awhile it was ok for clergy to marry. Now it is considered immoral. Something like that isn’t just moral one day and then not the next.
Let’s take one at a time. I can do many immoral things, but never teach something immoral. That’s often the case with parents. The case is the same with the Church. The popes and the bishops when united can never teach anything immoral. They can be culpable of doing immoral things, but that’s not what comes out of their mouths.

The Crusades were not immoral. Revisionist history has made them out to be immoral. The Muslims had invades Spain. In fact, they remained there for 800 years. They had taken down the Church of Constantinople and replaced it with Islam. They had invaded Palestine and taken over the Holy Land, killing Jews and Christians alike. They had invaded Western Africa, which had always been Christian. It was Augustine’s homeland. Is still in Muslim hands to this day. They were coming at Europe from the East, West and South. The Crusades were an attempt to stop their progress. The defense of one’s borders is not immoral. Like any war, there are going to be individuals who do immoral things. That part we cannot blame on the Church.

It has never been OK for the clergy to marry in either the East or the West. Whoever taught you that, did so incorrectly. The practice was that married men could be ordained. That practice is still in effect in 22 out of the 23 Catholic Churches in union with the papacy. You have to be married first. If you are ordained, before you’re married, you may not get married. Bishops may never be married. They must be celibate. Married men can only be secular priests. They can never be consecrated religious. Consecrated religious have always been celibate. They can be widowers, but not married or divorced.

In the Roman Church the practice of ordaining married men was phased out, because all 23 Catholic Church believe that celibacy is the highest of all vocations. The Council of Trent declared that anyone who questions this is to be anathema. Even the Eastern Catholics, who allow married men to become priests, believe that celibacy is the higher of the two vocations. They place great honor of those who are celibate.

In the Roman Church we have reinstated married clergy by allowing married men to become deacons. We do allow married clergy that convert to Catholicism to be ordained Catholic priests, but never bishops.

The sin is the violation of Church law. No one has the right to violate the Church’s law. This takes us back to Christ’s words to Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter has the right to make laws and man has a moral duty to obey them under penalty of sin.

There are moral absolutes that are revealed to us by God. Those cannot be changed. There are disciplines created by the Church. Those can be changed by the authority of the papacy. While the law is in force, we have a moral obligation to comply. The more serious the issue, the more serious the sin if we don’t comply. Contraception falls under one of the moral absolutes revealed by God. It cannot be changed by any pope.
I thought the Catholic Church believed in free will. Does church believe that the holy spirit controls the Pope and bishops, or does the church believe that they have free will.
Free will means that individuals are free to choose to do right or wrong. It does not apply to what God reveals. Since God speaks through the Church, the Church cannot speak contrary to the will of God. Whatever the Church teaches as God’s will is truly His word, not that of man. The Holy Spirit controls what the pope teaches or when the bishops speak as one voice, it controls what they teach. He does not control what they do. They can never teach that murder is a moral good, but that does not mean that they can never commit a murder. Some have done so.

The pope can never teach that it is morally permissible to deny Christ, but Peter did so three times. Yet, Peter never taught falsehood. However, he was unjust to the Gentiles, which drew him into a discussion with Paul. But if you read the Counsel of Jerusalem very carefully, Paul argues in favor of the Gentiles and protests that Peter is treating the Gentiles unfairly, but he never threatens to walk, nor does he ever speak to Peter by his given name. He always addresses him by the title that Christ gave him. He calls him Cephas (Rock). He acknowledges Peter’s supreme authority by acknowledging that only Peter is the Rock of the Church. From the beginning, we have a separation between what the pope can do and what he can teach. He can do many wrong things. He can never teach a single error in matters of faith or morals. Don’t count on the pope not making mistakes in matters of math or science. Infallibility does not cover that. If the pope tells you who is going to win the World Series, don’t count on it.
It was contraception, but that was not why he was condemned.
Who said so? That is the Church’s interpretation of that passage and no one has the right or authority to interpret scripture except the Church. Paul makes this very clear. The scriptures are not for private interpretation. Clement of Rome, the second pope, in his letter to the Ephesians, repeats the same doctrine. Only the Church’s interpretation scripture is valid, no one else’s. You can I cannot interpret scripture authoritatively. We can read it for personal inspiration. But when it comes to drawing doctrinal or moral conclusions from the bible, we have to submit to those conclusions that the Church approves and no other. We don’t have that kind of authority.
What if you do believe that Popes and bishops are generally instruments of God, but that they are not infallible?
Then you have excommunicated yourself from the Catholic Church and you may not receive Holy Communion until you come back into full communion with the Church. The rule is that only those who believe everything that the Church teaches can receive the Eucharist. When an adult enters the Catholic Church he is asked, “Do you believe everything that the Church teaches?” He must answer “Yes,” to be received.

Infallibility is a dogma required of all Catholics, Roman and Eastern Catholics. That’s why the Orthodox are not Catholic. They don’t believe infallibility. Though they seem to be coming around.
I will remind you again because you do not seem to understand that these are not arguments, but questions to help better understand Catholic doctrine. I hope you or someone else can answer these questions.
As someone else said, state them as questions, not as statements. Otherwise, you’re going to come off as contradicting yourself. Your ID says that you’re Catholic and your statement is contrary to Catholic faith. That’s only get to get you blasted.

Example: I don’t believe that contraception is a sin.

That’s not a question. That’s a statement of fact, coming from someone who has labeled himself as Catholic. That’s going to trigger a knee-jerk reaction. It would be like a Muslim or a Jew saying, “I don’t believe that circumcision is necessary.”

Example: Is contraception a sin? or Why is contraception a sin?

That is a question. It’s going to trigger a more sympathetic response. Any well informed Catholic is going to leap at the chance to help you understand…

I hope this helps. I’m out of here. I have to run.

Fraternally,

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