Where do we get the idea that contraception is bad?

[SonOfMan]

In the Catholic tradition, the sixth commandment is “Thou shall not commit adultery” which the Church understands to cover all aspects of sexual morality.

Even still, how does putting on a condom durng sex with one’s spouse constitute adultery?

 

[kozlosap]

Kozlosop, what is the “action” of NFP? Not having sex. What is the action of contraception? Having sex, but making it sterile. There is a vast difference; do you not see it?

I agree that when practiced correctly, both NFP and contraception can have similar outcomes.

An old adage fits here: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! You use NFP for preventing an unwanted pregnancy just as you would use condoms or ABC to do the same. Are the failure rates greater with some methods than others, of course.

 

[nodito]

An old adage fits here: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! You use NFP for preventing an unwanted pregnancy just as you would use condoms or ABC to do the same. Are the failure rates greater with some methods than others, of course.

I guess I would argue that it doesn’t “walk like a duck”!

I think the two are very different, even though they achieve similar outcomes. Sort of like working for money versus robbing a bank. Or losing weight by diet and exercise vs making yourself throw up.

 

[icamhif]

Because the whole point of sex is procreation. Once you take procreation out of the equation, you’re essentially just having intercourse for the purpose of lust.

I would say that there are two purposes of sex: procreation and having the most intimate union with your spouse. What does the Catholic Church teach? If I have to speculate, the Catholic Church says that the primary purpose of sex is the former, while the secondary purpose of sex is the latter? Is that correct? If so, then does the CC also say that if you take away the primary purpose, then it is sinful, despite the fact that it meets the secondary purpose?

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, there were abortifacients, of varying degrees of effectiveness (ancient medicine was more quackery than actual science). But even these abortifacients were considered medically immoral. The Hippocratic Oath, the most ancient known standard of ethical behavior for doctors, condemned such treatments:

And yet women have had recourse all sorts of methods and potions for millennia and many did work.

 

[Abu]

SonOfMan #99
DavidFilmer says there was no such thing as contraception during that time, which is why Jesus didnt speak to it. So, was it around or not? These conflicting statements give one the impression of distorting the facts to fit with ones argument.

False, as without ascertaining the facts ignorance is no justification for repeating error. Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., affirms, medical papyri describe contraceptive methods from 2700 B.C. in China and from 1850 B/C. in Egypt. Ephesian gynecologist Soranos (A.D. 98-138) described no less than seventeen medically approved methods. These methods were referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs” and had nothing to do with fertile or infertile periods which were unknown. Soranos thought that it was safer “to prevent conception from taking place than to destroy the fetus” already conceived. (The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 367).

“In the fourth century St. Augustine wrote, “Relations with one’s wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain.” St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, taught clearly the constant doctrine of the Christian religion that birth-control is a grave sin. He writes, “Next to murder, by which an actually existent human being is destroyed, we rank this sin by which the generation of a human being is prevented.” Contra Gent., Bk. III., c. 122. It is not a new law by any means.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=111

 

[Abu]

icamhif #103
If I have to speculate, the Catholic Church says that the primary purpose of sex is the former, while the secondary purpose of sex is the latter? Is that correct? If so, then does the CC also say that if you take away the primary purpose, then it is sinful, despite the fact that it meets the secondary purpose?

There is no need to speculate.

In Casti Connubii (II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[icamhif]

Okay, thank you. But FYI, next time you answer my question, I appreciate straight answers more than long quotes.

 

[Abu]

As this is a Forum (open discussion), the needs of others who read and/or discuss are considered as well and, as the Catholic Church and all issues involved in dogma and doctrine deserve real Catholic answers, that is what real Catholics try to provide, not mere opinions.

 

[Rau]

Jesus Christ never condemned it, so where do we get the idea that its sinful?

Nor did he condemn IVF, cloning and so forth. I wonder why?

Nevertheless, we have the next best thing. His Church condemns it, and Jesus Christ tells us that the Church speaks for Him. What more do you require?

 

[Rau]

…You use NFP for preventing an unwanted pregnancy just as you would use condoms or ABC to do the same. …

But the Church has NO PROBLEM with avoiding pregnancy (as a general rule). It even speaks of a positive obligation to responsible parenthood, the reasonable need for spacing births, and so on.

The Church teaches that the ‘wrong’ of contraception lies in corrupting the conjugal act, not the Intention of avoiding a pregnancy. The Condom corrupts the act. NFP “denies” the couple the act if the couple wish to avoid pregnancy - but does not change the conjugal act at all.

 

[Rau]

…That Onan story is not good enough. Just some tradition is not good enough. We need specific words from someone like Jesus or the Apostles and those just don’t exist for making contraception forbidden.

I wonder how the morality of IVF would ever be judged if the above is your minimum requirement?

You are willing to trust Scripture (as brought to you by the Catholic Church). Then should you not trust the teachings of the Catholic Church, given the Scriptures tell us that Jesus Himself said that the Church speaks for Him.

 

[_Abyssinia]

An old adage fits here: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! You use NFP for preventing an unwanted pregnancy just as you would use condoms or ABC to do the same. Are the failure rates greater with some methods than others, of course.

Father Richard Hogan has written: “Some people think that a decision by a couple to time their acts of love in order to space children using NFP is the same as the decision by a couple to avoid pregnancy through contraception. This is a confusion of purposes and means. The purpose may be the same, but the means are different. The NFP couple delaying another pregnancy and the contraceptive couple delaying a pregnancy are engaging in two radically different acts…The NFP couple, while engaging in non-procreative intercourse by making use of the infertile times, give themselves to each other totally and completely as they are at that moment. The contracepting couple withholds their fertility from each other in an anti-procreative act and do not give themselves totally. Remember, love is defined as a total self-gift…Further, the contracepting couple alters either both of their bodies or one of them, and in doing so they violate the integrity of their own bodies.” (The Human Body…a sign of dignity and a gift, page 9)

ccli.org/nfp/contraception-sterilization/why-nfp-is-different.php

 

[Rau]

Father Hogan misuses the term “non-procreative” above. Sex during infertile times is procreative; Sex after menopause is procreative - as the Church uses the term. Sex is procreative if the act is apt for procreation - fertility is not relevant. Contraception eliminates the procreative aspect of the act.

 

[zz912]

He was struck dead for not impregnating his sister in law. We are not under the same obligation as Onan to impregnate Onan’s sister in law, nor would it be possible.

What was the punishment proscribed for failing to impregnate his sister-in-law?

What punishment was meted out to him by God?

 

[zz912]

My post was about unwanted pregnancy, and you said that the ‘natural consequences of sin are unwanted’, which suggests that the sin was fornication.

Contraception does not lead to any unwanted consequences for me; the consequence that it leads to is avoiding pregnancy, which is exactly what I want.

Actually, over 1/2 of the people who get abortions were using some type of contraception. People want the sexual pleasure, but not the consequences of that sexual behavior.

And there are ways that are moral to attain goals, and immoral. You can work hard and earn a paycheck or you can rob a bank. Both attain the same goal, getting money. But one is evil and the other good.

There are ways of avoiding pregnancy (NFP) that are licit, and ways that are evil (contraception).

 

[SonOfMan]

Nor did he condemn IVF, cloning and so forth. I wonder why?

Considering that God/Jesus knows all and knew about IVF, cloning, and so forth and never condemned it, one can only conclude that it is permitted, or at least, morally neutral.

Nevertheless, we have the next best thing. His Church condemns it, and Jesus Christ tells us that the Church speaks for Him.

His Church has already made several errors in the area of morality throughout history. Who’s to say this isn’t another instance?

What more do you require?

Explicit condemnation from Jesus and/or a Commandment from God. Obscure passages interpreted by imperfect human beings isnt compelling.

 

[SonOfMan]

given the Scriptures tell us that Jesus Himself said that the Church speaks for Him.

Did the Church speak for Jesus when they claimed the earth was flat, permitted the torturing and enslavement of all pagans, lied to the public about the sex abuse scandals to save their own skin, etc.?

 

[SonOfMan]

But the Church has NO PROBLEM with avoiding pregnancy (as a general rule). It even speaks of a positive obligation to responsible parenthood, the reasonable need for spacing births, and so on.

The Church teaches that the ‘wrong’ of contraception lies in corrupting the conjugal act, not the Intention of avoiding a pregnancy. The Condom corrupts the act. NFP “denies” the couple the act if the couple wish to avoid pregnancy - but does not change the conjugal act at all.

Eating cheesecake corrupts the appetite, too. Cheesecake isnt necessary and its eaten strictly for the sake of pleasure (like lust), yet that is perfectly fine. Double standard.

 

[SonOfMan]

Or losing weight by diet and exercise vs making yourself throw up.

Some people diet and exercise, some people use weight loss pills In addition to that. Is that wrong?