Why are condoms wrong?

[Abu]

Facing Reality
The fantasy:

It has not been demonstrated that separating the two ‘ends’ of something is immoral. (tjm190).

The fact that deliberately putting a barrier against the Divine command to the procreation end of marriage while pursuing the pleasure is described as above reveals the inanity in the reasoning – like the previous inanity over “throwing farming techniques out the window.” Obviously the selfism involved devastates reason as well as morality; quite unable to see the wood for the trees.

The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.” The result of course is plain for all to see through contraception (and abortion) – the demographic winter over Europe and fast approaching in the rest of the world.

But now, we have also the rejection of the infallible doctrine of Christ Himself through His Church – first by Pope Pius XI in Cast Connubii, 1930, on the intrinsically grave evil of contraception, and showing the grave immorality of deliberately placing a barrier against the procreative end of marriage. We have already examined the incompatible and perilous state of the so-called Catholic who sets himself up against the teaching of Christ and His Church.

The obfuscation over Onan further reveals the morass of confusion eloquently. The intention & the effect are the same whether withdrawal or condoms – the deliberate human interference with the act of procreation as against participation in God-given human marriage open to life.

 

[tjm190]

Facing Reality
The fantasy:

The fact that deliberately putting a barrier against the Divine command to the procreation end of marriage while pursuing the pleasure is described as above reveals the inanity in the reasoning – like the previous inanity over “throwing farming techniques out the window.” Obviously the selfism involved devastates reason as well as morality; quite unable to see the wood for the trees.

/sigh. I never claimed it was immoral to farm using modern techniques. I was attempting to explain a teach in plain english. If we are to believe that there are somethings, some natural processes we are not to ‘mess with’ so that they better suit our needs, then it would seem tolerable to give an example of how this prohibition would play out on other processes.
And when exactly was this “Divine command to the procreation end of marriage” issued.

The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.” The result of course is plain for all to see through contraception (and abortion) – the demographic winter over Europe and fast approaching in the rest of the world.

Annnnnnnnd that all rests on the assumption that contraception violates natural law.

But now, we have also the rejection of the infallible doctrine of Christ Himself through His Church – first by Pope Pius XI in Cast Connubii, 1930, on the intrinsically grave evil of contraception, and showing the grave immorality of deliberately placing a barrier against the procreative end of marriage. We have already examined the incompatible and perilous state of the so-called Catholic who sets himself up against the teaching of Christ and His Church.

Yes, yes and when I start a thread dedicated to me explaining my faith that will be the appropriate place to discuss it.

The obfuscation over Onan further reveals the morass of confusion eloquently. The intention & the effect are the same whether withdrawal or condoms – the deliberate human interference with the act of procreation as against participation in God-given human marriage open to life.

It has not been demonstrated that withdrawal is sinful in all cases. Furthermore, even if we accept that said act is sinful, then we must simply avoid spilling seed upon the ground. There is no evidence to suggest that it may not go elsewhere. Perhaps if God had saw fit to list it with the sexual sins in Leviticus, we’d be set. But sadly, for you, no.

 

[Abu]

The incomprehension of tjm190
A favourite gambit of dissenters includes trying to limit the facts against a pet prejudice – in this case condom mania, resulting in:

when exactly was this “Divine command to the procreation end of marriage” issued,

once again illustrating incomprehension.
Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

Then there is the campaign against the Catholic faith on Catholic Answers on a subject called “Why condoms are wrong”.

when I start a thread dedicated to me explaining my faith that will be the appropriate place to discuss it.

What cheek!

Faithful Catholics will continue to offer the truth on the immorality of condom mania.

God as the source of morality
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006 (EWTN):
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honor God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbors and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The second way that God is the source of morality is, as you suggested, because he laid down the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai stating what man should already know by reason but are intent on forgetting. God is reminding them not to forget because he is his power and wisdom will hold all men to account when they die. Basic morality, then, comes from human reason with its knowledge of the natural law and from God, who personally reveals to man how he should live, teachings found in the Old and New Testament.

The third source of morality is from Christ who, supporting both the natural law and the Ten Commandments, declares that men are to believe in him as both God and man if they are to be saved.

 

[dramaqueen]

That’s not the same logic at all. God specifically condemned eating of the fruit. No one has shown me any evidence that sex for the sake of sex with one’s spouse is ungodly.

Dear Adam

Quite a dilemma you got there. I have trotted that path you are walking and come to this conclusion:

Adam what is Godly in selfishness? Sex for the sake of sex is selfish act where you are only interested in physical pleasure while the whole point of christian Life is to give yourself up for God and others. There is no mystery about it. Sorry if i sound harsh but that’s the bottom line.

God Bless you

 

[AdamC]

Dear Adam

Quite a dilemma you got there. I have trotted that path you are walking and come to this conclusion:

Adam what is Godly in selfishness? Sex for the sake of sex is selfish act where you are only interested in physical pleasure while the whole point of christian Life is to give yourself up for God and others. There is no mystery about it. Sorry if i sound harsh but that’s the bottom line.

God Bless you

I guess you could say that, if the sex really is selfish. But is it? I said in an earlier post that I didn’t think it is if it’s for the sake of “pleasuring” your spouse. Why would it be selfish for a man to want to (excuse the graphic language) give his wife an orgasm, or vise versa? If it was purely for the sake of just getting off, a “wham-bam, thank-ya, etc…” kind of sex, then I could call it selfish. But for a couple to want to share an intimate moment, just for the sake of being intimate, with the intention of mutual sexual gratification, I don’t think that’s selfish, and I don’t think it’s wrong. It can’t be wrong.

I’ll be blunt: I am a 27-year-old man, and I am not sexually active. I have enough trouble trying to keep my thoughts in line with a bunch of pictures of beautiful women exposed to me at nearly every waking second. (TV, internet ads, video games, magazines, billboards, bus ads, everything!) Imagine how difficult it would be if I had an actual beautiful woman, in my house, and perfectly willing (and wanting!) for me to touch her! (I say beautiful, because honestly, who marries someone who they don’t find attractive?) I’m not suggesting I want a lifetime of fruitless sex. I want two or three kids.

As (I think) I said before, I don’t want to offend God, I just honestly don’t see what’s wrong sex for fun with one’s spouse. It’s (presumably) a stable, trusting, safe, relationship where two people in love can be perfectly open and intimate with each other in every way–and sexual release should be one of those ways.

(In regards to offending God, I don’t think this does offend Him. Sex with prostitutes? Yeah. Late night porn and masturbation? Yeah. Those things are offensive. It’s purely selfish, and has absolutely nothing approaching love involved. A tender moment between a couple that’s been married 25 years that results in some straight-up sex? How could that be offensive? I think it’s OK for a woman who’s only a couple years away from menopause to be allowed to have sex with her husband without the idea in mind of “remaining open to the possibility of life”. I don’t want to get into a whole debate about whether or not NFP is valid, but it seems to me that waiting for a time of the month when a woman is less fertile is equivalent to waiting to a time of the month when she is less aroused. It doesn’t seem fair to me.)

 

[mchale]

What if one part was increased through fertility enhancing drugs? Would that ‘divorce the two ends’?

I fail to see how this follows from my previous point. You are not decreasing one of the goods of sex at that point.

Remember, one of the key reasons that contraception is considered wrong is that it interferes with the procreative aspects of sexual intercourse. I am not completely familiar with the Church’s position on fertility drugs, but I see no particular reason why they should be considered morally objectionable.

A gift that has consequences the receiver believes to be negative is a lousy gift.

Or a gift more profound than the receiver is able to comprehend.

I think this response gets to the heart of your dissent, which seems to be that the Church should adapt its teachings to what you want… or at the least to what the world as a whole wants.

And I would like to see the reasoning behind the claim I was responding to.

The reasoning has been explained to you numerous times. You either are A. incapable of understanding it or B. Reject the reasoning. Either way there is little point in me repeating it.

No, it communicates that you have mutually agreed to alter the odds in your favor.
Secondly NFP seeks to gain the benefits of marriage without the responsibility as well, it just does so less efficiently.

Nothing wrong with altering the odds in your favor provided you are working with God and natural law. In addition, as others have pointed out, NFP can be just as effective as any form of artificial birth control.

I should also point out, that NFP, if used to totally avoid pregnancy can itself be sinful. NFP can be used to delay or space pregnancies for serious reasons. However, if our intent is to totally avoid the gift of children, then it can be as sinful as any form of artificial birth control.

Contraception has the potential to be abused- congrats! You discovered our dark secret. The couple does not ‘have to’ communicate for NFP to work, aside from “what does our monitoring method of choice say about today?”

My guess is that you have never practiced NFP? Lets start with the fact that even if the communication only reaches the level you describe, it means that the couple is discussing the issue more than many couples.

In addition however, from my personal experience, you find that the discussion will lead into how comfortable each of you are with having children at a given time.

So being open to the passing of fluids strengthens a marriage.

No being open to the fullness of the gift that your spouse is giving you and being open to what God may ordain, that is what strengthens the bond.

The negative health effects that some methods carry are not an intrinsic property of contraception itself.

Maybe, but most contraception does seem to run the risk of some side effects. Certainly no one can deny the risks of the Pill.

People wanted more control over their lives- contraception was a means to that end. If you believe that end was immoral, that’s fine. But contraception is a tool- it has no more alignment.

Ah, now we come to the root of it. Its a matter of control, we want to live the life we want to live regardless of the life that God might want for us.

We are all guilty of this sin from time to time, but contraception embraces this sin (i.e., the sin of Pride or the putting of our will above God’s).

Children generally are benefits, but certainly when you lack the capability to care for those children, either fiscally, physically, or mentally then you should minimize the probability of having them. This is best done through abstinence, but if that is ‘too hard’ then other methods should be employed.

What a wonderful lack of faith you have. I agree that all our gifts are different, but arguments such as this are essentially arguments from selfishness. It generally appears to come down to we don’t want to change how we are living. Ultimately, if we work with God, God will help us find a way. It may not be easy, in fact it might be extremely difficult, but God will help us find a way.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Of all the things I have deducted from reading about NFP, “'prayerful and loving” are the last things that come to mind. On the contrary, NFP reduces sex to something that is methodical, calculated and mechanical. If it were “natural”, people wouldn’t have to take classes to learn to do it absolutely perfectly (which is the only way it can possibly be reliable). I also understand that NFP classes can be fairly expensive.

Perhaps you should talk to more people who practice NFP about the benefits. Yes, there are dissenters out there, who will talk up a storm, but then there are those of us who see NFP as a way to work with God to prayerfully and responsibly use his gift of fertility.

BTW, I should point out that short of sterilization, no form of birth control is effective unless used absolutely perfectly. I know of at least one child who entered this world because her Mom forgot to take the Pill for just one day. Likewise, condoms are frequently misused.

And yes, the classes are often expensive… but fees can be deferred for those who can’t afford them, and if you are going to be spending $10,000 on a wedding, then you should be able to afford $200 for NFP classes. Oh, and I might point out that once that fee is paid, NFP is essentially free, as opposed to the say $20 copay every month for the Pill, or the money spent on condoms every time one has sex.

My wife and I have been practicing NFP since the birth of our son, and we find that while it is difficult some times, we get these periods of great anticipation as we approach the periods when we are able to engage in marital relations. NFP helps us to not take sex for granted.

Why can’t you simply admit that NFP is not for everyone? It does not necessarily help a marriage; and, in fact, seems to create problems in many marriages. (One only needs to read some of the threads in these forums to realize that.) While NFP may work for a few couples who are committed to scrupulous observation and recordkeeping, most people don’t have the discipline, time or energy to do this — it’s just one more thing on their “to do” list.

I think the “scrupulous observation and recordkeeping” comes down to about 2 minutes a day. About the length of time it takes to take a pill.

I would also like to suggest that the problems you believe it creates are in fact not caused by NFP, but rather brought out by NFP. Often in couples where NFP fail, the couples differ in their level of faith and devotion to God and the Church. If one spouse believes that they should use birth control and not NFP, then naturally, issues are going to arise.

Also, as mentioned earlier, contraception does not violate any of the ten commandments (in spite of what the Catholic Church teaches.) It truly is something that is between a husband and wife and God. Apparently, the majority of Christians (including Catholics) realize this.

If NFP works for you, great! It doesn’t work for everyone, so don’t judge those who choose a more practical method.

We are not judging those who do not choose to use NFP, we are specifically addressing the question of why artificial birth control is wrong.

BTW, you do realize that the Bible holds a lot more than ten commandments right? At the council from Jerusalem, Christians were exempted from many of those commands, but not the ones involving sexual immorality.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

The incomprehension of tjm190
A favourite gambit of dissenters includes trying to limit the facts against a pet prejudice – in this case condom mania, resulting in: once again illustrating incomprehension.
Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

True, someone using a condom is not being fruitful and multiplying. However, neither is an unmarried person, a priest, or a couple practicing abstinence. In fact, of those groups the couple using contraception is being the most fruitful.

Then there is the campaign against the Catholic faith on Catholic Answers on a subject called “Why condoms are wrong”.
What cheek!

Faithful Catholics will continue to offer the truth on the immorality of condom mania.

God as the source of morality
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006 (EWTN):
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honor God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbors and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The second way that God is the source of morality is, as you suggested, because he laid down the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai stating what man should already know by reason but are intent on forgetting. God is reminding them not to forget because he is his power and wisdom will hold all men to account when they die. Basic morality, then, comes from human reason with its knowledge of the natural law and from God, who personally reveals to man how he should live, teachings found in the Old and New Testament.

The third source of morality is from Christ who, supporting both the natural law and the Ten Commandments, declares that men are to believe in him as both God and man if they are to be saved.

You managed to put down quite a few words without contributing anything to the discussion on the topic at hand.

 

[tjm190]

I fail to see how this follows from my previous point. You are not decreasing one of the goods of sex at that point.

Remember, one of the key reasons that contraception is considered wrong is that it interferes with the procreative aspects of sexual intercourse. I am not completely familiar with the Church’s position on fertility drugs, but I see no particular reason why they should be considered morally objectionable.

The argument is that NFP works with the fertility God gave us, while contraception alters it. Do fertility drugs work with what God gave us, or alter it?

Or a gift more profound than the receiver is able to comprehend.

Yes, a gift that costs someone their job, their retirement, or their health is truly incredible.

I think this response gets to the heart of your dissent, which seems to be that the Church should adapt its teachings to what you want… or at the least to what the world as a whole wants.

No, I’m saying that the argument that claims contraception is turning away a gift from God is foolish- a child that causes major health or fiscal problems is not a gift.

The reasoning has been explained to you numerous times. You either are A. incapable of understanding it or B. Reject the reasoning. Either way there is little point in me repeating it.

Really now? Somebody proved that contraceptive sex is like saying “I love you… sorta?” Must have missed that one.

Nothing wrong with altering the odds in your favor provided you are working with God and natural law. In addition, as others have pointed out, NFP can be just as effective as any form of artificial birth control.

And now we’re at the point where it would be wonderful if someone could show how altering the odds of conception in an individual act of sex violates natural law (although you seem to think the violation only occurs if the alteration is downward)

I should also point out, that NFP, if used to totally avoid pregnancy can itself be sinful. NFP can be used to delay or space pregnancies for serious reasons. However, if our intent is to totally avoid the gift of children, then it can be as sinful as any form of artificial birth control.

And again we’re at the ‘children are not always a gift’ impasse again.

My guess is that you have never practiced NFP? Lets start with the fact that even if the communication only reaches the level you describe, it means that the couple is discussing the issue more than many couples.

Yes, those few sentences can mean the world.

In addition however, from my personal experience, you find that the discussion will lead into how comfortable each of you are with having children at a given time.

This is not an intrinsic property of NFP- an atheistic nihilistic couple can practice NFP just as easily as a Catholic couple. They might even add to their security with a condom to get a truly solid success rate.

No being open to the fullness of the gift that your spouse is giving you and being open to what God may ordain, that is what strengthens the bond.

Contraception-using couples may be plenty open to what God may ordain. If the happen to conceive, there is no particular reason that they have to ‘reject’ their child.

What Maybe, but most contraception does seem to run the risk of some side effects. Certainly no one can deny the risks of the Pill.

There risks with anything that plays with hormones.

Ah, now we come to the root of it. Its a matter of control, we want to live the life we want to live regardless of the life that God might want for us.

We are all guilty of this sin from time to time, but contraception embraces this sin (i.e., the sin of Pride or the putting of our will above God’s).

Contraception does not ‘embrace’ anything- it. is. a. tool. It can be used to limit the number of children, or it can be used to have sex with whoever whenever.

What a wonderful lack of faith you have. I agree that all our gifts are different, but arguments such as this are essentially arguments from selfishness. It generally appears to come down to we don’t want to change how we are living. Ultimately, if we work with God, God will help us find a way. It may not be easy, in fact it might be extremely difficult, but God will help us find a way.

–
Bill

library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm
“Every year 15 million children die of hunger”

Every year, there are 15 million children who didn’t get quite enough help ‘finding a way.’
If they weren’t protected, what makes us better? Why would our retirement, our health, our finances, or our children’s education be protected when 15 million children aren’t?

 

[PassingThru]

My guess is that you have never practiced NFP? Lets start with the fact that even if the communication only reaches the level you describe, it means that the couple is discussing the issue more than many couples.

In addition however, from my personal experience, you find that the discussion will lead into how comfortable each of you are with having children at a given time.

My understanding is that this is not part of what makes NFP an acceptable practice. Secondary potential benefit, but not in any way a distinguishing trait.

One can communicate or not communicate with any method. The Church seems to avoid using this as a defining characteristic.

No being open to the fullness of the gift that your spouse is giving you and being open to what God may ordain, that is what strengthens the bond.

This one always gets me. Can you express how this is this is the case when practicing a system with the express intent to avoid children? Would not this method require you to specifically reject your spouse precisely when this “fullness” would lead to a child?

Ah, now we come to the root of it. Its a matter of control, we want to live the life we want to live regardless of the life that God might want for us.

We are all guilty of this sin from time to time, but contraception embraces this sin (i.e., the sin of Pride or the putting of our will above God’s).

Similar to above. NFP is control over our sexual habits to remove procreation from the sex we do have. Different, yes, but aren’t we talking about semantics at this point?

 

[rlg94086]

This one always gets me. Can you express how this is this is the case when practicing a system with the express intent to avoid children? Would not this method require you to specifically reject your spouse precisely when this “fullness” would lead to a child?

Similar to above. NFP is control over our sexual habits to remove procreation from the sex we do have. Different, yes, but aren’t we talking about semantics at this point?

This is poor reasoning on your part - not semantics. The sexual act has to be open to life. Every couple abstains from sex during different times of their relationship. To prayerfully abstain from sex during a fertile period of time is not “removing procreation from the sex we do have.” When a couple practicing NFP has sex, they are open to life. When using contraception, the couple’s sexual act is not open to life.

Also, the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy has to be for serious reasons. If a couple is using NFP for selfish reasons, they are still sinning.

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality
Since the objectives from God of marriage and the marital act are to increase and multiply, together with husbands loving their wives as Christ also loved the Church, and while God has also given us part of the woman’s cycle to be infertile as part of His plan, He has not authorised anyone to change His objectives (ends) by so doing. He has given us a brain to understand and use His design in keeping with His plan. We know that plan from the natural moral law and His Church, and must use, not misuse, His plan as we come to a greater understanding through science. Those who have decided to separate the ends by worshipping pleasure, prostitute His plan. Not in every act of sex is fertility possible. However, the sexual organs are specifically designed for procreation even if the women’s organs are not always fertile. Just because for much of the time fertility is not possible because of God’s design, does not justify our blocking the act when it is exercised.

prolifeaction.org/about/news/2006v25n3/cinta2.htm
Contraception Is Not the Answer, 2006
The conference closed with a talk by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World. Morse explained that she lost faith in the feminist movement’s false promises about contraception when she discovered that nature did not take her orders and that she could not control every aspect of her life. Morse calls married sex “smart sex” because it creates a permanent bond of relationship. In contrast, she says, contracepted sex is “dumb.”

“The promise of perfect contraception makes the hook-up culture possible,” says Morse. “But the reality of imperfect contraception is what makes the divorce and abortion culture inevitable.” According to Morse the contraceptive ideology says that all adults are entitled to unlimited sexual activity without a live baby resulting.

The relativism and incomprehension so far exhibited give us the opportunity to offer reality.

 

[tjm190]

You don’t seem to have presented any new information and arguments- although if the accusation of relativism was pointed at me, it would be grand if you could provide evidence to support that claim. Meaning take a quote of mine and tell us all how that quote shows that I reject the existance of absolute moral laws.

 

[Abu]

As relativism refers to conceptions of truth and moral values that are not absolute but are relative, and as the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church is absolute that the use of condoms is gravely sinful, then the dissenter who chooses to reject that doctrine is practising relativism. This infallible doctrine is based on the natural moral law which is supported by Divine Revelation.

It is a will to self-love of one’s own opinions which corrodes the obedience-love syndrome which Jesus develops in the last half of John’s 14th chapter, and on to 15:10 et seq. Why did Jesus come? To die (Jn 12:27). He knew He would be killed because good and bad men united to kill Him. Why? Because of why He came: “To bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37), and “To proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom.” (Mt 4:23).

Many are “thinking” only with their feelings, and rearranging their prejudices.

The teaching against contraception is infallible because it has always been taught – the universality of time – “Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption.” (Casti Connubii). It is infallible also because definitively and absolutely proclaimed to be held by all the faithful by Pope Pius XI, on morals, as Supreme Pastor to the whole Church. This doctrine was repeated by Paul VI, similarly, under great pressure concerning the possibility of accepting the new “Pill” as morally licit.

We may recall:
Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, spoke also of “that sound philosophy,” which, “acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth. … Never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic.”(#29, 30)

So man can know God, because man knows “good” as God has provided him (a human person with a human nature) with a conscience and endowed him with intelligence and free will. It is through that conscience that man can know right from wrong. Our philosophers teach us that; Christ’s Church teaches us that – which is precisely why it is possible for pagans to be saved, and to know that contraception and sodomy are wrong.

However, due to Original Sin and the clouding of reason and intelligence God has provided us with a redeemer (His Son) and His Church to enable us to share in His Life and ensure our salvation if we choose to follow Him.

 

[AdamC]

The teaching against contraception is infallible because it has always been taught

Are you suggesting that it’s wrong just because the Church says so?

I gave reasons why I think condoms are OK, if they aren’t, I want to know WHY. I don’t follow baseless rules, and God doesn’t provide baseless commandments. If condoms are wrong there must be a reason, and I want to know what it is.

The point of this thread (contrary to how it may appear because of others) is not to debase the Church or its authority, but to learn about why the Church has this particular stance.

I gave my opinion, but I am man enough to admit when I’m wrong. If I am, explain why. I want a good, strong, reasonable explanation that is derived from scripture and tradition. So far I’ve receive weak half-answers and angry arguments between other members.

 

[tjm190]

As relativism refers to conceptions of truth and moral values that are not absolute but are relative, and as the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church is absolute that the use of condoms is gravely sinful, then the dissenter who chooses to reject that doctrine is practising relativism. This infallible doctrine is based on the natural moral law which is supported by Divine Revelation.

You believe that the absolute moral truth says one thing, I say it is another. You are not practicing relativism any less so than I.

It is a will to self-love of one’s own opinions which corrodes the obedience-love syndrome which Jesus develops in the last half of John’s 14th chapter, and on to 15:10 et seq. Why did Jesus come? To die (Jn 12:27). He knew He would be killed because good and bad men united to kill Him. Why? Because of why He came: “To bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37), and “To proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom.” (Mt 4:23).

Many are “thinking” only with their feelings, and rearranging their prejudices.

The teaching against contraception is infallible because it has always been taught – the universality of time – “Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption.” (Casti Connubii). It is infallible also because definitively and absolutely proclaimed to be held by all the faithful by Pope Pius XI, on morals, as Supreme Pastor to the whole Church. This doctrine was repeated by Paul VI, similarly, under great pressure concerning the possibility of accepting the new “Pill” as morally licit.

A belief can be said by anyone for any period of time- that does not affect it’s truthfulness. Unless you are claiming that the Church actually has the power to ‘set’ what is right and wrong. Aka, they tell God what to think. Otherwise, they must prove their positions.

We may recall:
Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, spoke also of “that sound philosophy,” which, “acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth. … Never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic.”(#29, 30)

So man can know God, because man knows “good” as God has provided him (a human person with a human nature) with a conscience and endowed him with intelligence and free will. It is through that conscience that man can know right from wrong. Our philosophers teach us that; Christ’s Church teaches us that – which is precisely why it is possible for pagans to be saved, and to know that contraception and sodomy are wrong.

However, due to Original Sin and the clouding of reason and intelligence God has provided us with a redeemer (His Son) and His Church to enable us to share in His Life and ensure our salvation if we choose to follow Him.

Alright. So let’s say I admit that my corrupted sense of reason hurts my ability to determine the truth. Well what should I do to find out the truth?
(Inset argument that states that I should submit to the Church)
Great argument! I’m really convinced. The problem is, since I can’t trust my reasoning that’s not good enough- if I can’t trust myself to determine right from wrong, how can I trust myself to determine whether or not to accept the Church is infallible? Any argument, no matter how strong, assumes that the listener can trust their own reasoning.

 

[PassingThru]

Alright. So let’s say I admit that my corrupted sense of reason hurts my ability to determine the truth. Well what should I do to find out the truth?
(Inset argument that states that I should submit to the Church)
Great argument! I’m really convinced. The problem is, since I can’t trust my reasoning that’s not good enough- if I can’t trust myself to determine right from wrong, how can I trust myself to determine whether or not to accept the Church is infallible? Any argument, no matter how strong, assumes that the listener can trust their own reasoning.

This got a chuckle from me.

Your back and forth with Abu brings up a point that I often feel with this debate. Most of this relies on you trusting in Teaching, meaning, it is a matter of faith. To me, this is the only way to make logical sense of the issue. Its is also the only one that, at this point, I accept. Any attempts to use logic to break down the components that are used to condemn ABC while accepting NFP will ultimately fail. In order for the logic to actually hold, it requires a bit of faith. Which, again, is fine. But it makes for horrible debates when people dont realize they are mixing in a dose of faith “mortar” to hold the logic “bricks” together.

 

[AdamC]

scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.” Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).

 

[Abu]

PassingThru
it is a matter of faith. To me, this is the only way to make logical sense of the issue. Its is also the only one that, at this point, I accept.

Strange that the quoted insights of pagan philosophers backed by the insights of St Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic philosophers on the natural moral law are blissfully ignored. No wonder there is so much confusion. Even St Paul refers to this fact: “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them” (Romans 2:14, 15). This is precisely why pagans may achieve salvation, and know that sodomy and contraception are wrong. But confusion reigns supreme when prejudices are merely being rearranged (William James). Your error in not seeing how the Catholic Church has built Western civilization can be easily overcome by reading the book in post #87.

AdamC
Are you suggesting that it’s wrong just because the Church says so?

You have had more than ample evidence of the fact of the natural moral law, and the fact that pagans attest to it, plus the simple steps that we use to show the immorality of all methods of contraception. God’s condemnation of Onanism, post #89, shows what God expects of mankind – knowledge of His moral law which illuminates the insight of St Paul in Romans above.

When Christ built His Church on Peter He gave him His authority to bind and loose and the keys of heaven, and He did so because of the weakening of man’s faculties through Original Sin and so that the fullness of truth on faith and morality would be always with us – on His Word, infallibly. So His Church tells us what is right and what is wrong from Christ. Your reference in #117 is well worthwhile.

Even Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., a Platonist, explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; in The *Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15].

Summed up in Pope John Paul II’s great Encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), 1998.

 

[Abu]

tjm190
You believe that the absolute moral truth says one thing, I say it is another. A belief can be said by anyone for any period of time- that does not affect it’s truthfulness. Unless you are claiming that the Church actually has the power to ‘set’ what is right and wrong. Aka, they tell God what to think. if I can’t trust myself to determine right from wrong, how can I trust myself to determine whether or not to accept the Church is infallible?

1. I’m sorry that you do not have the mind of the Church. Infallibility is not possessed by “anyone”. It is shown in several ways, one of which is infallibility through the “universality” of time, and this “argument from time” was used by Pius XII in the Dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption – it had been taught through many centuries – which proclaimed its infallibility.
2. No. God tells us what is true through His Son’s Church. Who else ever thought that the Church tells God what to think? How quaint! This is what Jesus did in transferring His authority to teach on Peter:
   **All four promises to Peter alone: **
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
   Sole authority:
   “Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
   “Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Yes all teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed by Christ.
One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but **since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” **(Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Christ’s Church gives us the fullness of truth – absolute truth.