Where do we get the idea that contraception is bad?

[Rau]

The point that all boils down to is why the Church doesnt approve contraception. The fact is, the prohibition on it is not from God; its from fallible, fallen, imperfect human beings who study theology.

Then you do believe The Church is just a group with opinions, not guided by God at all. Why listen to anything it says at all? Why trust any part of the Gospels brough to us by the Church, especially given you discard the part about establishing a Church with teaching authority?

 

[Abu]

SonOfMan #160
Jesus established “a church” (we dont reasonably know that its The Catholic Church) to pass along his teachings. He didnt give them authority to create new ones.

False on both feelings.

1. False because Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

We know that Jesus chose St Peter on whom to build His Church. Which other sect has St Peter as its head?

1. False, because the Christ actually commanded in His authorization “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Thus The Christ foresaw the evils which would arise and gave His Chief Vicar, and thus His Catholic Church, the fullness of His authority to teach on all faith and moral issues – the unheard of at that time – such as cloning, IVF etc.

“While the teaching [against contraception] was always there…the Magisterium expressed itself with vigor whenever the need arose…the list of such declarations would be interminable. In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

With such a lack of knowledge of the Christ and His Church, no wonder so many errors are conjured up.

 

[zz912]

Many atheists hold that time and place dictate morality.

Which is them exercising their ultimate authority they give themselves to decide that morality is relative to the culture and time. So you’ve proven my point even when you didn’t intend to.

What you continually fail to realize is that police agencies and schools do not claim to be the ultimate moral authority. If they legitimately screw up, its not as big a deal as someone who claims to have infallible discernment on morals. Thats the difference.

To illustrate my point on the handling of child abuse further, even hardcore convicts and murderers, the lowest of the low, know how to deal with child abusers. They know its very serious. In that light, those convicts are much more enlightened than the Church on this matter. That really says a lot about the credbiliy and discernment of the Church.

So if even the lowest of the low can get understand something so obvious, how can you trust people who cant understand that with more obscure and complex situations, like contraception?

When did the Church, not individuals in the Church, but the Church, not know abusing children was wrong? When did the Church say it was okay or right?

Your logic falters terribly.

 

[zz912]

They were using contraception because they didn’t want to be pregnant, and they got an abortion for the same reason; there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancy without contraception.

This is actually false. Abortion skyrocketed because of contraception use. The abortion mills know the more contraception is used, the more abortions there will be. If there were no contraception, people would be a LOT more careful about who they have sex with and when. Sex outside marriage would plummet and children born out of wedlock would decrease substantially.

The false “safety” of “safe” sex and contraception encourages people to engage in risky behaviors they wouldn’t normally, believing they are “protected”.

People want sexual pleasure (and/or intimacy, ect) without pregnancy (and/or infection, ect), and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Nothing personal towards you, but you aren’t the decider of right and wrong.

NFP would make me and a lot of other people very uncomfortable for various reasons. Contraception isn’t hurting anyone in the way that a robbery would, it’s helping people to choose how they want to live their lives.

Contraception hurts in many ways. It hurts all the babies killed in abortion because their mommies got pregnant thinking they were “safe”, so their mommies had them killed. It hurts women by having those on the pill pump themselves full of Grade 1 carcinogens for years on end (enough hormones to cause functioning organs to become dysfunctional). It hurts women and children because sex is no longer linked to marriage, so sex is given out without a second thought to an actual relationship or commitment from each other. In this scenario, men leave the women to fend for themselves, since pregnancy is not an expected outcome of sex (so it’s her fault if she gets pregnant).

Contraception harms in ways that you haven’t care to examine.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I am under the impression that certain incestual relationships are given dispensations to marry by a Bishop in the Catholic Church. Why would they OK something that Jesus never approved?

There’s a “line” where someone is related but distantly, and marriage is allowed. For example, you can marry your sixth cousin without any dispensation (lots of people marry distant relatives without even knowing it). Where that line is drawn is not doctrinal. In some cases (usually involving marriages within royal families) the Church may permit a closer degree of relationship than usually allowed (first cousins, for example). But you will never see the Church permit brothers to marry sisters (which was the usual form of incest in the pagan West).

He was struck dead for not impregnating his sister in law.

So, you think that, had Onan married the widow and provided for her, but refused to lie with her, he would have been struck dead?

I am certain that you are mistaken here, as Jesus asks John the apostle to write down everything he saw and heard in The Revelation.

There’s no reason to think that John the Apostle wrote Revelation. Most scholars don’t think so, and the author of Revelation is often called St. John the Divine. And the association between Jesus and the lamb is not clearly established in Revelation (the lamb is never called Jesus). This is speculation on your part. I, for one, try to avoid speculating about Revelation - so confusing.

Humans are too unreliable and inconsistent to be left with such a task. It makes much more sense that God himself would have given a list, or even better, check in with us ever century to make sure we still understand.

We check in with God whenever something needs to be taught. That’s how Magesterium works.

God could have given us a list (or a fish), or he could have empowered us to come up with the list ourselves (or teach us to fish). Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or teach him to fish and let himself feed himself for a lifetime.

This argument doesnt work because the Catholic Church claims that we too, are apart of Jesus’ audience. So yes, he should have taught about all future sinful technologies to encompass all audiences from every era.

Jesus DOES teach every generation. But he uses TEACHERS (not pre-compiled lists).

You might not agree with HOW Jesus teaches our generation, but that’s not really for you to pass judgement on.

Jesus never taught about abortion. Do you think abortion is OK?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is the teaching on contraception considered infallible?

No, but it doesn’t matter. Catholics must follow ALL teachings of the Church, not just the infallible ones. Why can’t you understand this? Infallibility doesn’t matter to the guy in the pew - we don’t get to pick and choose which doctrines to accept.

 

[Loly_Maria]

If there were no contraception, people would be a LOT more careful about who they have sex with and when. Sex outside marriage would plummet and children born out of wedlock would decrease substantially.

The false “safety” of “safe” sex and contraception encourages people to engage in risky behaviors they wouldn’t normally, believing they are “protected”.

Some people probably would have less sex, and many people would be completely unable to have sex, and I don’t think that is really a good thing (one example is people who are married being unable to have sex). Contraception used properly can be very effective, near 100%, and does make sex very safe.

Nothing personal towards you, but you aren’t the decider of right and wrong.

I do decide what is right and wrong for my own life.

Contraception hurts in many ways. It hurts all the babies killed in abortion because their mommies got pregnant thinking they were “safe”, so their mommies had them killed. It hurts women by having those on the pill pump themselves full of Grade 1 carcinogens for years on end (enough hormones to cause functioning organs to become dysfunctional). It hurts women and children because sex is no longer linked to marriage, so sex is given out without a second thought to an actual relationship or commitment from each other. In this scenario, men leave the women to fend for themselves, since pregnancy is not an expected outcome of sex (so it’s her fault if she gets pregnant).

Contraception harms in ways that you haven’t care to examine.

The person using the contraceptive can look into any potential health risks, same as with any medication. Lots of people think health risks are worth it, and many don’t, and it’s the individual’s choice to decide.

Not all unmarried men leave if their partner becomes pregnant, and many married men do leave. Most of the people I know have parents who are unmarried, and both parents were a part of their lives.

Contraception is a good thing for a lot of people, even with potential side effects.

 

[Rau]

…I do decide what is right and wrong for my own life.

Right and wrong has a more “absolute” character than that, at least in Catholic thinking about morality. Some things are always wrong to choose, and it does not matter what motivates the choice or the circumstances in which it is made. Put another way, the ends do not justify the means.

In respect of our own lives - we make our own choices. We may believe we are choosing right, or we may be kidding ourselves. Either way, making a choice is not the same as deciding what is right or wrong.

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #184
To: Is the teaching on contraception considered infallible?
Replied: No,….

David Filmer is wrong in “considering” that the doctrine against contraception is not infallible teaching.

No. 43 Roman Theological Forum
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Brian W. Harrison
“We have now carefully examined, word for word, the four characteristics of an *ex cathedra *definition specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870, in the light of Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation of the text and the subsequent teaching of Vatican Council II. We have also examined Humanae Vitae, presenting evidence that the definition in article 14 of the encyclical clearly manifests all four characteristics. We conclude, therefore, that this definition is indeed an *ex cathedra *proclamation - infallible and irreformable in itself.

“Finally, in article 14, the summit itself is reached, and the solemn definition is proclaimed.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Where Vatican I uses “define” (definit), Vatican II uses “proclaims by a definitive act” (definitive proclamat)
“As we saw, Gasser explained that what this means is that the teaching be pronounced “directly and conclusively”.72 The key notion here is that of finality - of terminating whatever doubt or controversy there may be about the doctrine in question.” (op.cit., Fr Harrison)

Casti Connubii came in answer to the capitulation to contraception at the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, and so was a definitive condemnation of that error that threatened to subvert marriage.

**Answer by David M. Gregson, Ph.D. of EWTN to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

 

[ahs]

Some people probably would have less sex, and many people would be completely unable to have sex, and I don’t think that is really a good thing (one example is people who are married being unable to have sex).

Unable to have sex ever due to lack of function? Or unable during the fertile period or when conception is most likely? And why does not being a “good thing” matter? Can’t God bring good out of even the worst of situations? (The Crucifixion comes to mind…it wasn’t a “good” thing on the surface of it.)

Contraception used properly can be very effective, near 100%, and does make sex very safe.

Why does that matter when discussing the morality of an act?

I do decide what is right and wrong for my own life.

But Christians don’t, and particularly Catholics. We let God decide what is right and wrong for our lives because He (not we) is the Author of Life.

 

[zz912]

Some people probably would have less sex, and many people would be completely unable to have sex, and I don’t think that is really a good thing (one example is people who are married being unable to have sex). Contraception used properly can be very effective, near 100%, and does make sex very safe.

UNABLE to have sex because they wouldn’t have contraception? What medical condition the inhibits or prevents sex does contraception cure?

And you’re using that term again. What is “unsafe” with sex in a marriage? This whole brainwashing of the notion of “safe sex” is so evil and unhealthy.

I do decide what is right and wrong for my own life.

Right and wrong were decided long before you were created. You choose whether you are going to DO right or wrong, but you don’t decide right or wrong.

The person using the contraceptive can look into any potential health risks, same as with any medication. Lots of people think health risks are worth it, and many don’t, and it’s the individual’s choice to decide.

Most people don’t know anything about the health risks, and doctors have been complicit in this. Contraception is the only medication where they intentionally avoid telling patients risks, and they prescribe it like candy to young, developing girls. The pill is a MASSIVE hormone that has HUGE short and long term effects, and they just throw it at every single teenage girl they can find. It’s horrendous.

Not all unmarried men leave if their partner becomes pregnant, and many married men do leave. Most of the people I know have parents who are unmarried, and both parents were a part of their lives.

We’re talking populations, not individual exceptions to the rule. And the wreckage to society that contraception has created is devastating. Especially for women and children, who are left without a husband and father to provide for them.

Contraception is a good thing for a lot of people, even with potential side effects.

Evil is never a good thing for people, no matter how you dress it up.

 

[SonOfMan]

No, but it doesn’t matter. Catholics must follow ALL teachings of the Church, not just the infallible ones. Why can’t you understand this? Infallibility doesn’t matter to the guy in the pew - we don’t get to pick and choose which doctrines to accept.

Understood. But if its not infallible, it can be changed by someone in authority then, yes?

 

[SonOfMan]

When did the Church, not individuals in the Church, but the Church, not know abusing children was wrong? When did the Church say it was okay or right?

Your logic falters terribly.

Ive heard many priests defend themselves with “We didnt know about the impacts of this at the time. We thought it could he cured” etc reasons for not treating it as such a big deal. They knew it was wrong, but supposedly didnt know it was a big deal. But more to the point, I think they did know, they just wanted to hide it to save their own image and the image of the Church. All of this shows very poor judgement.

 

[SonOfMan]

There’s no reason to think that John the Apostle wrote Revelation. Most scholars don’t think so, and the author of Revelation is often called St. John the Divine. And the association between Jesus and the lamb is not clearly established in Revelation (the lamb is never called Jesus). This is speculation on your part. I, for one, try to avoid speculating about Revelation - so confusing.

Thank you for your honesty. Many scholars even believe that the line about Jesus handing the keys to Peter had been added in later too, to justify the Church being the ultimate authority. So, since the Bible is generally unreliable and agenda driven, it cant really be used to persuade people of absolute moral truths, as we simply do not know.

 

[davidv]

Understood. But if its not infallible, it can be changed by someone in authority then, yes?

No.

 

[jmcrae]

Understood. But if its not infallible, it can be changed by someone in authority then, yes?

Even if it could be (and in the case of the moral law, I strongly doubt that it can be changed, even if it is not infallible) we follow the law as it stands today; not the law as it might become, some time later.

We see this even with traffic laws, which are very changeable. I had an experience recently where I was ticketed for speeding in a 30k zone (I was going 38k.)

Three days after I paid the fine, they changed it to a 50k zone. Even though they changed it later, I was still guilty of speeding, when it was a 30k zone.

With regard to contraception, I don’t think it will ever change, because it ties into our belief that God has created each human being purposefully, and that everyone has a purpose, given by God, for their lives.

 

[eddie_too]

artificial contraception is a great tool for turning the human body in to a mere tool for sexual pleasure. it is very useful for men to avoid accepting their own sexuality and for enabling men to make mere objects out of women, sometimes women use it in this way but not to the same degree to which men make or ask women to use it.

artificial contraception’s primary purpose is to allow human beings to deviate from God’s infinite wisdom.

God did not create sexual pleasure so that human beings can turn away from that part of their nature that relates to procreation. He created sexual pleasure so that human beings could participate in His creative act of love.

the erroneous concept is the idea that sexual pleasure was created so that human beings could use other human beings or themselves as mere objects designed to produce pleasure.

artificial contraception enables human beings to temporarily deny their full humanity.

artificial contraception is the best means men have created for keeping women beneath them and at their beck and call.

the only real reason people use artificial contraception is to deny their very nature.

the use of artificial contraception is a grave matter and has grave consequences for those who use them even if the users do not believe it to be grave.

sin has material effects even when guilt may be mitigated due to ignorance.

it is not possible for a human being to lovingly use artificial contraception because its use requires a denial of what a person truly is.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for your honesty. Many scholars even believe that the line about Jesus handing the keys to Peter had been added in later too, to justify the Church being the ultimate authority. So, since the Bible is generally unreliable and agenda driven, it cant really be used to persuade people of absolute moral truths, as we simply do not know.

The fact that we don’t necessarily think St. John wrote the Book of Revelation himself in no way impugns the reliability of the Scriptures.

What many scholars believe is that it was written in his name by members of his community. There was nothing deceitful or even unusual about that, at the time.

 

[eddie_too]

a teaching does not have to be formally defined as infallible to be an infallible teaching.

I can not think of, nor have I ever read or heard of, any argument or reasoned assertion that can justify human beings using their bodies as though they were mere physical objects be used for self-satisfactory, physical pleasuring.

while we reside in this world, our bodies are the dwelling places for our souls and thus are more than mere physical objects. when we receive the eucharist, our bodies become a dwelling place for the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. when we are in the state of grace, our bodies are tabernacles of the Holy Spirit who dwells in union with our souls. to deny our very natures, which we do when we use artificial contraception is to ignore or reject a spiritual reality upon which our salvation depends.

 

[DCNBILL]

Some people probably would have less sex, and many people would be completely unable to have sex, and I don’t think that is really a good thing (one example is people who are married being unable to have sex). Contraception used properly can be very effective, near 100%, and does make sex very safe.

I do decide what is right and wrong for my own life.

Actually, you decide what you want to do and want you do not want to do, what is right or wrong is the realm of God. You either decide to say yes to God or no to God. To do what is right or to sin.

Moral relativism has taken a great toll on the world, much prayer is needed.