Which is a more effective argument against contraception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scholastic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scholastic

Guest
We can see from the extreme complexity of our bodies that it was designed by God. We can also see from the nature of our reproductive organs that they were designed for the purpose of reproducing. Therefore, when someone uses their reproductive organs with the intention of excluding the possibility of reproduction, they are acting contrary to God’s will. Therefore the use of contraception is evil.

When we commit the conjugal act, we are telling our partner that we are giving ourselves completely to them. But, with the use of contraception we are holding back a part of ourself, i.e. our fertility. Thus, the use of contraception is dishonest. Therefore, the use of contraception is evil.
 
I don’t really find either argument compelling. I believe the doctrine on contraception only because the Church has always taught it.

The argument about it being “artificial” and not as God intended… I have often wondered how this is different from using artificial sweetener and fat substitutes. Normally if we eat a certain amount of food then weight gain happens. We want to continue eating the same amount of food and use an unnatural means to avoid the consequences of doing so. Yet nobody regards this as sin. How is this different from artificiallness in artificial contraception?
 
“…the fact is that the artificiality of contraception figures not at all in the Church’s condemnation of contraception. Certainly, the Church teachings that contraceptives commonly known as ‘artificial birth control’ are morally impermissible, but it is not because of their artificiality that they are condemned.”

“Artificial vs. Natural?” PDF /
(http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:FiXnLpkJi1wJ:www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/SHMS/Faculty/SmithJanet/Publications/HumanaeVitae/ArtificialvsNatural.pdf+%22Artificial+vs.+Natural%22&hl=en)]
 
St. Ambrose,

I think your obedience is Great!

Don’t let the world dictate the way you think. Think like a saint!

Example: You can’t compare engaging in intercouse in the bonds of a sacred marriage to the sweetner that is used in a Pop-Tart!

Scholastic used two valid arguments against contraception. Both are true!

Peace,
John
 
I personally think that the whole contraception perspective by the Church is a matter of semantics.

Now I don’t inlcude those methods which cause abortion, as such as they are outright evil, but ultimately contraception or more to the point, avoidance of pregnancy when engaging in intercourse is a matter of the intent of the mind.

If I practice NFP with the intention of avoiding pregnancy for a period of time, then that is a decision that I have made in regards to my mind and then the subsequent action is that the pregnanacy is avoided because I chose not to engage in intercourse at the very time when pregnancy is possible. Ultimately this window of opportunity for pregnancy is only a few days, meaning that I am free to engage in intercourse more or less for about another 25 odd days of the month. I can hardly be said to be chaste if I am only excluding myself from the conjugal act for a few days per month.

Now in reality for most maried couples, they would not be engaging in intercourse every day except when perhaps the marriage is new.

The simple fact is that practice of NFP is the avoidance of pregnancy, yet we are taught that there are two aspects of the marriage that are most imporant and they are the unitive and procreative. If I deliberately avoid pregancy for whatever reason/method then I have effected the procreative aspect. Now it is possible that in avoiding the procreative aspect that I can adversely effect the unitive.

Now the Church allows us to technically only use NFP to delay or more correctly space our children according to the supposed seriousness of the reasons for such delay/spacing.

Now if for eg. I use a condom to avoid pregnancy and my mental intent is the same as that of the NFP person, ie space my children then how is that any different.

Technically I realsie that the use of a condom allows me to engage in intercourse during the most fertile time with substantial reduced risk of pregnancy. But we must remember my intent is only to space my children, I know I am not giving all of myself both bodily and mentally but then neither is the person practicing NFP.

In fact in either situation, only when our intentions are to get pregnant can we both truly be said to be giving of ourselves both physically amd mentally.
 
To my mind, the only argument against birth control is a simple one: it encourages people to think of sex as recreation - when it is far more than even the means of reproduction; it impacts nearly every facet of ones life, from emotional, to practical, to physical health, to the prospective and/or potential lives of others.

This is going to sound dumb, but think about it: sex is not fun.

Clint
 
The argument about it being “artificial” and not as God intended… I have often wondered how this is different from using artificial sweetener and fat substitutes.
Click to expand...
I think the distinction needs to be made between non-natural and unnatural. Artificial is non-natural because it is not a product of nature. But unnatural is something that positively opposes the intetions of nature, and thus, also nature’s creator’s intentions. As you can see, artificial sweetener in not unnatural, but non-natural.
Also, the only way to know whether something is right or wrong is to examine the nature of the thing(not including divine revelation). So, the only way to prove the immorality of something, is to prove it’s unnaturalness.
 
I would describe #1 as a more Thomistic or Natural Law argument and #2 as a more Personalist argument, philosophically speaking. I find both effective; I really appreciated the way #1 was phrased, while I thought #2 was very thought-provoking. We are creatures but not cattle; we are images of God who must especially reflect God at this most intimate of moments. Contraception ultimately demeans us and reduces us to an animal level just when our divine dignity should raise us so high. To say that we must be open 100% of the time to the gift of life really is the flip side of another statement: that a single act of contracepting deposes us from this lofty height. Excellent poll!
 
I find it intersting that only about 5% of Catholics practice NFP. I think mostly because they are unaware that the church really teaches artificial birth control is wrong, plain wrong.
The comparison of using a condom didn’t make sense to me. When I am practicing nfp, I have to make a conscious and prayerful decision to abstain if I know I am fertile (when I rely on other sources, I don’t have to know a thing about my body and most women don’t). I have to stop and think about it. When my husband is putting on a condom because we just can’t wait a whole 4 days to make love, I don’t think God is in that decision, it is about feeling good. We are also allowed to use nfp for grave reasons not just for spacing. If you have a serious financial circumstance or perhaps mental issues, you are permitted to use nfp to delay or to not have children. Bottom line, it is suppose to be a prayerful decision and God needs to be involved. When you choose to contracept, you are choosing and closing the door on life. When you practice nfp, you are leaving the door cracked and letting God decide. IF you prevent your body from ovulating all together, you are telling God no. If you prevent the sperm from entering the woman, you are telling God no. When you use NFP, you are telling God maybe and He can do with that what He sees best. It is always possible, though not likely if used correctly, that you could get pregnant. Also about the condom thing, it reminds me of Onan (I think that was his name) who spilled his seed rather than fathering a child. God struck him down dead.
It has taken me a long time to come to grips with this. When we suffered many miscarriages, I began to udnerstand. I begged God to bless us with another baby. It didn’t seem right to trust Him then but then tell Him to bud out once we got what we wanted. He came through for me then, He will continue to do so. I have to remember He knows what is best.
 
Tim Hayes:
If I deliberately avoid pregancy for whatever reason/method then I have effected the procreative aspect.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how abstaining from the conjugal act frustrates the procreative aspect of the conjugal act. In abstention, there is no conjugal act, and thus no procreative aspect to frustrate.
Now if for eg. I use a condom to avoid pregnancy and my mental intent is the same as that of the NFP person, ie space my children then how is that any different.
Click to expand...
The ends may be the same, but what about the means? To use an analogy, there’s a moral difference between getting a car by stealing it and getting a car by paying for it.

And “the end does not justify the means.”
 
They’re both good arguments; keep them BOTH in your apologetic arsenal! Which one is more effective? It depends on who you’re talking to!

I would like to add to the artificial birth control (ABC)/NFP discussion.

The difference between using ABC and using NFP to postpone or avoid a pregnancy is like…

a husband saying to his wife “honey, I love you so much I want you to take a hormone pill every single day so that we can have sex anytime we want” (or maybe she can wear a patch to show her love for him?)

vs.

a husband saying to his wife “honey, I love you so much that I will wait until tomorrow night (or the next night!) to be intimate with you because I know we can’t afford another baby right now.”

Which one shows real love?
 
Now if for eg. I use a condom to avoid pregnancy and my mental intent is the same as that of the NFP person, ie space my children then how is that any different.

One is intrinsically evil and one is not. NFP can be sinful is used with the intent of contracepting. NFP is intended to be used in a non sinful way. A condom is always sinful and is intended to be so.
 
I liked the link to the Artificial vs. Natural article - although I disagree with the notion that artificialness has nothing to do with it.

My understanding is that some of the Church’s justification is that we can’t separate the unitive and the procreative aspects of sex. To make this argument we need #1 to demonstrate that sex is naturally ordered to be both unitive and procreative. Any artificial
separation of those aspects changes the nature of the act.

But the real key to all this is:

Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred, Human life is sacred.

Sweetners are not sacred. Animal life is not sacred. Therefore we can use artificial sweetners. We can neuter our dogs.

When we hold something sacred, we don’t change it, or we are carefull not to entirely change the character of it. That’s what that means when we say “Sacred Tradition”, we (or the Holy Spirit) will never allow it to evolve so much that it is unrecognizable from the original. That’s why Bible translations must be done with the utmost care.

Also when we regard something as sacred, the instruments associated with it are set aside.

Special china is only used for special meals. It is the very act of reserving the china for special meals that helps set those meals apart. If that same china is then used for ordinary meals, it no longer has the power to make the special meals visibly special.

Likewise, if that act, which initiates a sacred human life is also used as mere recreation. The act loses it’s power to make visible just how beautiful, precious, and sacred human life is.

One of the “fruits” of contraception is jokes about how miserable parenting is. Jokes like: People arguing over when life begins: At conception? At birth? No, after the kids leave the house. Rather than children being the fruit of a very special and sacred act, children are now viewed as a burden that results from a “failure” of ABC.
 
Depends - who is the audience?
Click to expand...
Secularists.
Last year in my religion class at my catholic high school my teacher used the second argument while I used the first argument. Most of my classmates were the secularist type. When my teacher proposed the second argument they didn’t respond and weren’t impressed. The second argument only seems to confirm the beliefs of already believing catholics. When I proposed the first argument to my class, the reaction was different. A few people vocally agreed. Others nodded their heads. Others had an interested look on their face. The others (who I know wanted to argue) had nothing to say. I think the reason is because secularists pride themselves on being scientificly minded. Since, the first argument is based on the objective physical nature of our reproductive organs, they are more likely to accept it. For some reason, secularists don’t apply their relativism to physical realities. The second argument seems to be more easily dismissed by secularists. That’s my opinion.
 
Black Jaque:
One of the “fruits” of contraception is jokes about how miserable parenting is. Jokes like: People arguing over when life begins: At conception? At birth? No, after the kids leave the house. Rather than children being the fruit of a very special and sacred act, children are now viewed as a burden that results from a “failure” of ABC.
Click to expand...
People also view fertility as a disease to be avoided.
 
The whole idea of avoiding pregnancy is a STATE OF MIND as regards INTENTION

Let us get into a theological but also philosophical issue.

Either artifical birth control is evil and will cost us our salvation if we practice it or not.

Let us use Protestants, and I only use them for this discussion,

Just about all protestants in some way or another have heard that the Catholic Church teaches against artifical birth control, or in some cases may have been told in there own “church” groups that artifical birth control is wrong.

(POINT 1)Secondly, we are told that God gives non catholics graces to help them come to him and his Church.

This means that he must be nudging them “home” in relation to all matters that are mortal sins and can/will cost us our salvation.

We can say that any Protestant who does not come home to the Catholic Church MUST be refusing those graces, in other words they are refusing GOD.

The only other alternative is that GOD does not require them to come home to the Catholic Church and they can still be largly saved within the confines of their current beliefs and practices even if those beliefs and practices are at odds with Catholic teaching

Now let us get back to artificial contraception, all those who practice artifical contraception and who are Protestant must therefore be damned because they must have received Graces from God to stop practicing artifical birth control,(as we are told that it is a mortal and extremely evil Sin and will cost us salvation) yet they continue to practice artifical birth control.

The Church talks about GOD wanting everyone to be saved and giving them the opportunity to be saved, for this to be the case he must ensure that he gives them opportunity to learn and come to the truth before they die.

At minimum the truth would have to be and include all the teachings of the Church that classify something as mortal Sin.(inclusive of artificial birth control)

We know that just about all Protestants practice artificial birth control (as do many catholics) To be a practicer of artifical birth control is to refuse GOD and is a very serious evil according to the catholic Church, if it is indeed a serious evil that can/will cost us salvation then he must apply that to everyone whether catholic or not and the reason he must apply it is becasue he MUST have supplied those people with the graces to come to the belief and practice that artifical birth control is evil/wrong, and if he supplied them with the necessary graces, which he MUST do, to come to the belief that artifical birth control is wrong then those people have turned their back on Gods grace adn we know what the result is.(hell) If it is not Hell then artificial birth control in of itself cannot be a mortal evil sin.

I look forward to the replies especially in relation to its relevence to artifical birth control and its effect on our salvation
 
In order for something to be a mortal sin don’t you have to have knowledge of it being a mortal sin and consent to do it anyway? I think you would be hard pressed to find a Protestant who believed that it is a mortal sin (or one that believes in varying degrees of sin for that matter). If they don’t know that it is, then how is it a mortal sin? You can’t commit a mortal sin without knowingly doing so. The same could be applied to Sunday obligation. If you don’t know… it isn’t mortal
 
Theoretically that is the teaching of the Church, but the Church also says that I must have a properly formed conscious which in reality to be properly formed must believe and practice as per the CAtholic Faith, if not then I have no properly formed conscious. It ultimatley is a circle, becasue if I believe/practice anything that the CAtholic Church says is wrong then my conscious is wrong.

But the Church also teaches that God provides graces or shall we say “prompts” to those who seek him, so that they may come to the truth.

It is also taught that he will not give us anything we cannot handle.

Now in this whole idea it is teaching that God gives all people “prompting” to come to him if they seek him. the ultimate conlcusion according to the Church is that they come to the Catholic Church adn this must include believing and practicing as per the Church.

Are you willing to say that God never gave anyone enough help(prompting) to come to the Catholic Faith, No one I presume will be willing to say such a thing.

If he has provided the necessary prompts then theoretically everyone must end up in the Catholic Faith, if they have listened and heeded the prompts, or at the very least if he is on an Island that makes it impossible to leave and join the Catholic Church that he would ultimately be observing the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

Either God does provide us with the neccesary help to come to the Church and its same beliefs ( at the very least in relation to sins) or he does not.

If he does provide us with the necessary graces and we do not come to the catholic Faith then we have turned our back on God, what, says the Church is the result of turning our back on God

If he does not provide the Graces then that person had no hope to being with and then we are in an area of predestinatin that the Church says is incorrect.
 
Tim,

The points you raise are the same ones I often think about. They are sobering. Contraception is intrinsically evil. Bishops and priests almost never talk or preach about it. Most “Catholics” use it and treat it as a sacrament. Non Catholics, since about 1930, use it and accept it on par with using toothpaste.

For a Catholic to use it certainly would be a mortal sin in almost every case in out culture. I think it is #s 1740 and 1741 in CCC that says we are under a SERIOUS obligation to form our conscience with the teachings of Christ’s Church.

One would be hard pressed to make a case to our Lord that they decided to contracept because they did not know the Church taught against it, or Fr, X said it iwas ok. Nice try, but it is not a get into heaven free card, while committing a mortal sin. IMO, priests and bishops will have much to answer for.

Invicible ignorance is one thing, but intentional ignorance does not remove culpability. How can someone in our culture who studies so many secular things say they do not have time to study their faith? No, I can’y buy the argument that Catholics are not informed as to why they must never contracept.

That Protestants. also, are obligated to follow the law is an interesting topic and would like to see what others say. I think that they too are bound in the same way. Can we say they are ignorant of natural law? They are “off the hook” beacuse they do not accept it is a mortal sin to contracept? I do not think so.

I have come to call this legalistic mind set the “sacrament of ignorance”. It seems that we all are free to commit grave sins and are not to blame anymore beacuse we are ignorant. Yes, I know there are 3 criteria for a sin to be mortal. but intentional ignorance is not an excuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top