M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
There is a reason for it. We trust that even if we don’t know it, the Church does.
- Status
A
AdamC
Guest
That’s nonsense, and you know it. Why wouldn’t the church share the reason with us?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
You misunderstand me; the Church has revealed the teaching, I just haven’t bothered to dig through and find it. I’m not really too invested in this topic, to be honest. If I were, I’d look it up.
A
AdamC
Guest
OK, fine, then say that.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
What’s your problem? I thought I made it clear, realized I didn’t, and corrected myself. Back off.
A
AdamC
Guest
Sorry, I don’t mean to snap at you. I guess I didn’t think about what I typed before I submitted it.
I’m just getting frustrated with all of this! Nobody seems to have an actual answer for me, they just keep saying the same thing again and again. I wanted reason, I wanted scriptural evidence, and nobody was willing to give me that.
I just want to know why! If there’s reason for it, then I’ll follow it! If not, I won’t!
I love kids, I want my own, but I don’t want to have baby after baby after baby, and I really don’t see myself being able to keep my hands off a beautiful woman (my hypothetical wife) just because sex isn’t scheduled for this week.
S
Suspicious_Mind
Guest
Ah, the classic verse that people have debated the exact meaning of over. It could be multiple issues dealt with in this verse:
- ‘Wasted’ seed - So Scripture indicates that seed was obviously wasted, but this could be a two-fold point - i) God wanted offspring from Onan and the widow, but this didn’t happen and/or ii) It’s considered potential human life in Scripture and it was a waste, possibly alluding to the “body is a temple” - but that’s vague
- “What he did greatly offended” - it doesn’t really state if it was because he disobeyed God, but judging by the past sentence of “wasted” seed it could be relating to some contraceptive issue, hard to tell though. Would require looking more into the greek scriptures.
J
JerryS
Guest
Of course there’s a reason - sex is for procreation. There are other benefits of marital sexuality, but sex that denies God the opportunity to create life is immoral. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sex. There are extenuating circumstances - threat to maternal health, dire financial stress, etc. Otherwise, sex must be open to procreation.
Many of our societal ills are a direct result of separation of sex from procreation - babies born out-of-wedlock, abortion, STD’s, the breakdown of the family,… It’s clear that sex for recreation is bad for individuals and for society. Perhaps it’s hard to accept that this extends to me and my wife also (and in fact it is taking some adjustment to let God be in control after many years of non-Catholic marriage). But, I can see that contraception is bad outside the marital boundaries, so I can accept that it’s wrong for me too.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Thank you, apology accepted.
As a Catholic, my understanding is different than yours. I know there’s a reason the Church teaches what she teaches, I just don’t know where to find it. But I accept her teaching in faith since I believe she’s infallible.
You, on the other hand, as a non-Catholic naturally would like a reason for this. I wish I could give that to you, but right now I can’t. My best, unofficial guess is that even though like you said the thin covering of latex will not be any sort of barrier to God if he wants a baby to be born, it is sinful because what we are trying to do is “play God” in a way…we’re hoping that by putting that barrier there we can prevent children.
How is NFP any different? I think it has something to do with NFP being more natural, but truthfully I don’t really know.
That’s the best I could do.
S
Suspicious_Mind
Guest
I pretty much agree with everything here except that bolded bit, that’s plain ridiculous.
A
AdamC
Guest
I have another question:
I read somewhere that sex during pregnancy is permitted. If that’s the case, then why is it allowed? There’s absolutely no way that sex during pregnancy can lead to further pregnancy, so the only possible reason for sex during pregnancy can be for recreation.
I read somewhere that sex during pregnancy is permitted. If that’s the case, then why is it allowed? There’s absolutely no way that sex during pregnancy can lead to further pregnancy, so the only possible reason for sex during pregnancy can be for recreation.
D
Des
Guest
I believe here’s what you’re missing SM. The bonding has to do with giving themselves fully and completely to one another. They don’t hold back. Condoms or Birth control is like the husband or wife saying during the time of love making: “I don’t want to make love to the part of you that creates babies”. So he/she is not accepting their spouse 100 percent and therefore it injures what is meant to be a pure conjugal act between husband and wife. In NFP they are still accepting one another completely during love making though it happens to be at a time when she may be infertile. And let us not forget that the ‘possibility’ of conceiving is still present.
Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter ‘Humanae Vitae’ is an excellent read on this topic and can be found here.
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm
"Then, this love is total, that is to say, it is a very special form of personal friendship, in which husband and wife generously share everything, without undue reservations or selfish calculations. Whoever truly loves his marriage partner loves not only for what he receives, but for the partner’s self, rejoicing that he can enrich his partner with the gift of himself."
J
JerryS
Guest
This is what it really comes down to (for me, anyway). I want to have sex when I want to, and I don’t want to have babies if I don’t want to. It’s all about my desires. That’s the selfishness that sex without procreation naturally leads to. Even if a husband and wife agree on the contraception, they’re still excluding God from the decision.
Traditional Christianity teaches that a disciple of Christ must strive to live a holy life, and one aspect of a holy life is celibacy or non-contracepting marriage. Holiness is not about when I can or cannot bag my wife, but rather how I can love her and honor her and sacrifice myself for her good and the good of my family.
You can find plenty of religions out there that will let you believe anything about God and holiness that you care to. That’s not Catholicism, though. It defines traditional Christianity and is committed to teaching the faith of the apostles until the end of the age.
A
AdamC
Guest
You’re putting words in my mouth. I’m not talking about “bagging” or “screwing” or “f—ing”, I’m talking about making love for the sake of making love. You’re suggesting that it’s a selfish thing. Why would it be selfish to want to physically please your spouse, just because a baby can’t come of it?
J
JerryS
Guest
Ridicule accepted. I was speaking primarily about recreational sex outside of marriage, which I do believe is bad for most individuals and for society.
A
AdamC
Guest
Yup! I agree with that too. (I’m only saying this because I don’t want people to think I’m advocating casual, unwed sex.)
S
Suspicious_Mind
Guest
I’ve heard this a million times in some variation or another, yet strangely it seems to make no sense. I wonder if it’s because it’s a fallacy of non-sequitir, which would mean it actually doesn’t make sense.
How is a condom or birth control “like” the husband saying “I don’t want to make love to part of you that creates babies” How? How?
- If anything, you are making love to that part 
This is in no way any kind of reasonable explanation, it falls short on so many levels, primarily in cogency. Let me try to rephrase it into a structure of an argument:
- Condoms and birth control are wrong (premise)
- They are wrong because the husband/wife is (implicitly) saying they don’t want to make love to the part that creates babies (reasoning)
What’s happening here is you’ve read parts of Theology of the Body, or something along those lines, not fully understood it, and now are trying to explain it to someone else, and blundering everywhere.
So I’ll bite:
How is the use of a condom not fully accepting the spouse? It injures a pure “conjugal” act? How are they accepting each other fully in NFP when a lot of these couples are intentionally intimate during a period when they know that pregnancy is not going to happen? The possibility of conceiving is present with the use of a condom too, and couples know this as well. It’s more effective than NFP however.
It would have been great if you had read my earlier post in which I recommended the reading of HV to the OP, and now you’re recommending it to me too
- I have read it, and it’s not that all that conclusive, nor has it been for many Catholics either.I can retort back at Paul VI asking him, or whoever assisting him in writing that encyclical, by posing a specific situation - What if the couple are in dire financial need, and really cannot afford having another child? Should they use NFP anyways and risk bringing a child into this world when at the moment they are in a risky financial situation, or perhaps the man is unemployed?
I find “selfish calculations” funny too, because NFP revolves around doing those interesting calculations, the period of the month, etc.
S
Suspicious_Mind
Guest
Ah no worries.
E
exoflare
Guest
Evidence?
S
Suspicious_Mind
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods
That and perhaps the fact that if NFP was more effective, people would obviously be using that method wouldn’t they
- Status