Z
zz912
Guest
Of course, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. This thread is about why contraception isn’t okay, which is not the focus of those instances you noted above.
- Status
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
I’m not committing any sin. I’m married.
N
nodito
Guest
Lola Maria wrote that some people might feel pregnancy was worse than disease, that a pregnancy could be unwanted. You wrote that all consequences of sin were unwanted. But not all pregnancies are the result of sin, so your statement is false.
Contraception is wrong; but the reason is not because it helps people avoid the consequences of their sins.
K
kozlosap
Guest
YES! Changing the name of an action does not change that specific action or the consequences of said action. NFP is contraception just as an IUD or the pill is - one is just easier on a daily basis!
N
nodito
Guest
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?YES! Changing the name of an action does not change that specific action or the consequences of said action. NFP is contraception just as an IUD or the pill is - one is just easier on a daily basis!
I agree that when practiced correctly, both NFP and contraception can have similar outcomes.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Right. Even if the outcome is the same, how we get there is important.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
If the idea came from Ludwig Ott or Scott Hahn, you would obviously be correct. No matter how respected Ott and Hahn are, and no matter how often they are cited here, they are only private theologians, and their opinions carry no ecclesiastical authority.
But the theologians that teach about contraception happen to ALSO be Popes (in union with the Bishops). They are theologians, but (unlike Ott and Hahn) they are not ONLY theologians. They form the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.
The Magesterium MAY teach infallibly. Thus, the teaching about contraception MAY be infallible. But the Church has not said so, so we shouldn’t say so either.
But the infallible nature of the teaching (or lack thereof) is pretty much irrelevant to Catholics, who are expected to obey the Magesterium, regardless of what is taught. This applies to things that are clearly NOT infallible (such as obedience to the precepts (rules) of the Church, which could change (or be abolished) at any time). Heck, Canon Law is not infallible. It can be abolished at any time (and it actually has been abolished - twice). Every Canon promulgated by every Ecumenical Council in history has been abolished (abrogated)).
So, for Catholics, the teaching about contraception MIGHT be merely a human rule (such as the precepts of the Church - not infallible) or it MIGHT be Divine Doctrine (infallible). But, to Catholics, it doesn’t matter. We are expected to obey both the rules AND the doctrines, and we don’t really care which is which.
P
phil19034
Guest
Besides the non-life threatening diseases that go away (which is what I mean thy flulike), what disease would you rather have? Herpes? Seriously, you say you would rather have lots of diseases over being pregnant, I would like to know just one.
Also, it’s pretty simply. If you are mature enough to have sex, then you are mature enough to raise a child. That’s what sex is, you are saying “God I’m ready to receive a child in love!” This is why it is why it’s called “making love.” It is impossible to make love with contraception. Sex with contraception is just sex and lustful. Sex without contraception is love because it means you are willing to accept with love a little bundle of joy God sends you.
NFP is abstinence. Contraception is “I’m out smarting God.”
L
Loly_Maria
Guest
A life threatening disease might be preferable to pregnancy, if I didn’t have the option of abortion.
I am mature enough to raise a child, and have been for a long time. I just don’t want one. It’s called ‘making love’, from my POV, because it’s a way of showing love with a partner; I wouldn’t be able to do this without contraception, because I would be so afraid of pregnancy. I don’t want to be pregnant because I don’t want children, and I don’t like the idea of being pregnant.
If contraception outsmarts God, then God can’t be very smart (which I doubt is true).
O
openmind77
Guest
Actually it seems most Americans agree with you that using contraception is not immoral. See this article: gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx . In Europe or other places in the world, the percentages are probably higher (although how much higher can they be than 90%).
As someone said on this thread, just because almost everyone says something is moral, does not mean it is.
However, it does mean that we need some very solid, explicit scriptural evidence and backing. 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.
N
nodito
Guest
Why?
E
edlinked
Guest
Contraception means against conception just analyze what this means.
Love and Responsibility from Karol Wojtyla talks about the subject. Morality comes from the dignity of the person, not from what gives pleasure.
The sex drive objective finality is procreation, not our satisfaction from our pleasures.
The person is what needs loving, where loving is not intercourse. Intercourse needs to come from love, and intercourse contains love in the sense that you already love (that you understand what is love (Gods love)). You don’t protect the pleasures, because pleasures are only yours (only you can feel them).
The point is that for you to get to true love (Gods love) you need to have chastity, temperance and self mastery, in conclusion love virtue (Even if you are married).
If you want to know about this subject see what saints state about them. If you want to know what is “good” (as only God is good), see the saints (as they get God). If you think good is determined by the satisfaction of your pleasures, don’t look at them, as sacrifice is a key action when you are talking about Gods love, and about being a true catholic (a saint). Because pleasures blind you from seeing what is important (so you need to master them, meaning don’t let them lead).
Saints are wise men, even if many think otherwise, but the wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God. Which would you follow if you are a catholic?
Love and Responsibility from Karol Wojtyla talks about the subject. Morality comes from the dignity of the person, not from what gives pleasure.
The sex drive objective finality is procreation, not our satisfaction from our pleasures.
The person is what needs loving, where loving is not intercourse. Intercourse needs to come from love, and intercourse contains love in the sense that you already love (that you understand what is love (Gods love)). You don’t protect the pleasures, because pleasures are only yours (only you can feel them).
The point is that for you to get to true love (Gods love) you need to have chastity, temperance and self mastery, in conclusion love virtue (Even if you are married).
If you want to know about this subject see what saints state about them. If you want to know what is “good” (as only God is good), see the saints (as they get God). If you think good is determined by the satisfaction of your pleasures, don’t look at them, as sacrifice is a key action when you are talking about Gods love, and about being a true catholic (a saint). Because pleasures blind you from seeing what is important (so you need to master them, meaning don’t let them lead).
Saints are wise men, even if many think otherwise, but the wisdom of man is not the wisdom of God. Which would you follow if you are a catholic?
S
SonOfMan
Guest
The Jews didnt see rape to be all that evil, as long as they married the woman they raped after, it was overlooked.
But loosely justified as condemnation, rape can fall under (forced) fornication.
Well, Paul does use that odd term that many take as meaning homosexual, but maybe it means grown men who lie with children or boys as if they were women.
This can probably fall under murder even, since the intent is to poison.
No condemnation for contraception or anything even loosely related to it.
E
edlinked
Guest
It is interesting that Jesus came from a virgin, never needed to have sexual relations, and that we are commanded to love like He does.
So don’t we need to see and understand how He loves (loved) so that we can love like Him, so that we can act like Him.
So don’t we need to see and understand how He loves (loved) so that we can love like Him, so that we can act like Him.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I think I made a convincing case that it IS good enough. Had Onan agreed to marry and support his brother’s widow, but refused to lie with her, do you think God would have struck him dead? But he was not satisfied with such an arrangement - he wanted to gratify his sexual desires without consequence. So I am asking YOU this question: Had Onan agreed to marry and support his brother’s widow, but refused to lie with her, would God have struck him dead?
SERIOUSLY??? Are you absolutely joking??? Do you have any concept of the idea that there was NO SUCH THING as contraception (as we understand the concept) in Our Lord’s day (and there was NO SUCH THING until just a few decades ago)???
C’mon - you can’t possibly be THAT uninformed! NOBODY can be THAT uninformed.
So, what do you expect Jesus to have said, maybe something like this:
There was exactly ONE way that ancient people could practice “birth control” and it was ONAN. The ONE guy that you dismiss outright.
The modern Church is confronted with OTHER situations which were completely unknown in Our Lord’s time. Such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Jesus didn’t talk about IVF either. So does that mean that God cannot oppose (or support) IVF? Without the teaching authority of the Church, how are God’s teachings (one way or another) to be made known? Are we to expect to ALSO find teachings about IVF in ancient texts? And, if not, does that automatically make IVF perfectly OK?
Does that make pornography perfectly OK? I’m pretty sure there was no porn in Our Lord’s time.
Jesus never taught against genocide. And genocide was actually ORDERED by God in the Old Testament. So does that make Stalin and Hitler OK? Can the modern Church condemn the genocide of Stalin and Hitler, even WITHOUT any precedent from Jesus or the Apostles?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
There were a range of potions, suppositories and abotifacents known in ancient times.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think there are good reasons to believe that the story of Onan supports Catholic teaching regarding contraception. However, it is not the basis for Catholic teaching on contraception. The teaching does not rise or fall on our understanding of that passage. The Catechism does not even cite Genesis 38:8-10 in support of the Catholic position. The critics could be right that Onan’s sin had more to do with not fulfilling his duties and it would not change Catholic teaching on contraception by one iota.
It is false to think that something needs to be explicitly condemned by Jesus in the Bible in order for it to be immoral. That’s a very legalistic way of looking at morality. Jesus left us the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit who would lead Her into all truth. The Church applies the teachings of Christ in every age.
It is false to think that something needs to be explicitly condemned by Jesus in the Bible in order for it to be immoral. That’s a very legalistic way of looking at morality. Jesus left us the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit who would lead Her into all truth. The Church applies the teachings of Christ in every age.
D
DCNBILL
Guest
It seems that very many people use this way to justify their sins.
I was deluding myself about this for some time until I stepped back and realized the the pride that I was bathing in. One must realize that to submit to God’s will with humility is the critical step before anything will change in their lives.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Pornography has such a broad meaning, I am sure there was porn in Jesus’ day, like watching people have sex live.
However, this all falls under “porneia” (i believe the word pornography comes from it
), and Jesus gave that as a reason to divorce. So, he didnt approve of porneia.But, no such disproval of anything related to contraception.
Keep in mind as a side thought, using the “There was no (fill in the blank) in Jesus’ day, so he couldnt explicitly condemn it)” card will not work, because Jesus was supposed to know everything (which would include him being able to foresee the existence of porn and modern day contraception) since he is claimed to be God. Jesus’ teachings are alleged to be for all time and for all people not just the ancient people, so he should have clarified such things that he foresaw, like the controversy surrounding contraception, to the broader audiences that were to come in the future, so that there would be no confusion.
So bottom line: If Jesus was God and knows all, then he knew about the contraception that we have today, and never condemned it.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Its a good thing to live one’s life based on the 10 Commandments, right? Or are God’s commandments incomplete, since he didnt foresee the advancements in contraception that we have today? (Although him not being able to foresee would cancel out his Omnipresence and Omnisciene, or would seem to indicate the Commandments were created by humans who couldn’t foresee).
- Status