Why are condoms wrong?

[dramaqueen]

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.)

Adam,

God Bless you Adam.you make a sound argument and it is perfectly OK for a man to make love to his wife whenever he wants (provided of course it’s what she wants as well) as a way of deepening their love and absolute willingness to participate in God’s greatest creation, however to get closer to God the more you give up what you want (including sex) the more closer you are to Him. God created Humans as sexual beings where sex is part of life, it is sacred act between a husband and a wife for the purpose of extension of love between two people and of course procreation. Remember as long as married couple is willing to bare the consequence (even unwanted ones such as pregnancy) i don’t see how can it be wrong. How can it be sin if you are willing to face with whatever God gives you? you mentioned couple of 25 years well they are allowed to have that moment as well - it is after all a way of showing love for you partner and as long you are not being selfish in you act it should be permissible (I am not theologian this is my humble opinion you should check CCC for more acurate info).

As far as NFP, well i do have my fare share of disagreement with that. Like you I am 27 yrs, a woman (single - so i know what you are going through) but if there is anything i am not it is a Swiss watch. I don’t run perfectly and on time so it is rather presumptions to think i can predict my own body behavior. Then again of all the contraception out there this one is the most natural and aligned with God’s will so God in his infinite wisdom gave us an option nevertheless.

Today world lives on sex because that is what sells (name a product - advertise it with sex and it will sell) We need to step away form that and give sex it’s proper function in the society. It is sacred, it is a way of sharing love between married couple and it has a higher purpose of procreation. I hope that some of it helped because i do know (first hand) how frustrating it can be to want to understand something that you think is common sense, or just understand it period.

PS Bare in mind also that there some questions are never meant to be answered no matter how hard we try (I am still waiting on mine …lol) - maybe they will be answered when we join God in his heavenly kingdom )

God bless you abundantly and thank you for posting this topic for i have learned a thing or two form this discussion as well.

 

[Abu]

It’s a shame that so much confusion exists over NBR (NFP) through lack of knowledge.
NFP is only practical for adult married Catholics who can read and write. …In Guatemala about 40% of Catholics are illiterate. Have a look at what has been done with NBR for the less fortunate, or illiterate.

[See http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/article_05.asp]
Charlotte Hays, Solving The Puzzle Of Natural Family Planning, 2001
Wilson’s lecture in Guatemala was a hit, and many women were eager to learn how to space their pregnancies. But there was a hitch: Most of the women could not read. That meant that using thermometers and recording their temperatures, at that time still part of the Billings program, was impossible. Calendar rhythm was also impossible. Wilson decided to teach a mucus-only system that would use colored stamps on a chart to indicate periods of fertility. She went to a local printer and said, “I want you to make me a set of stamps, some red and some green.” There were, all told, three kinds of stamps: red for menstruation, green for infertile times, and white “baby stamps” for fertile times. Later, brown was substituted for green because a Maryknoll missioner pointed out that many in the developing world were likely to associate the color green with fertility.

Wilson’s Family of the Americas Foundation now teaches NFP in more than 100 countries, including China. “God would not be so cruel that unless you can read you can’t follow natural family planning,” she insists. “Why make it so complicated?” Wilson’s bold decision to dispense with the thermometer and rely solely on observations of mucus was followed by the Billings in Australia several years later.

NFP families, whether Couple to Couple or Billings followers, report an astonishingly low divorce rate — one informal study puts it at 1.3 percent, as compared with about 50 percent in society at large. Even accounting for the high level of dedication of the NFP group studied, experts estimate that the divorce rate for NFP couples does not go above 4 percent. Wilson’s Family of the Americas has a study that shows a 2 percent divorce rate. Advocates say that NFP promotes communication between husband and wife because both must be involved. Husbands are encouraged to help with the charting.

A number of private organizations — including Wilson’s Family of the Americas — provide NFP training to the needy in Latin America. But these providers are smaller than government sources, which favor artificial contraception.

Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among “the poorest of the poor” in Guatemala. “There’s no excuse anymore to pretend that only those with strong religious convictions can follow natural family planning,” she writes.

 

[WetCatechumen]

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.

Let me try to explain. This is the long version. I will post a short version after.

People often compare zygotes to sperm and eggs. One of the reasons we Catholic Christians proclaim the sanctity and right to life of zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and infants is because they are all human beings.

The only difference between a zygote and the sperm and egg that fertilize it is that they’ve come together. Because of their holy duty in the creation of a human being, sperm and ova are sacred. While many modern people find this position absurd, every single one of us here was once two single-celled organisms created by our parents. The continuity which exists that grants infants the same rights as adults, fetuses the same rights as infants, embryos the same rights as fetuses, and zygotes the same rights as embryos serves to give us a sense of the sacredness of sperm and ova.

The primary purpose of sex, from the standpoints of science and moral theology, is the bringing together of the sperm and the ovum. The psychological and physical pleasure of the participants is secondary.

When the sperm and the ovum meet together, a wholly unique, special, human, and sacred person is created in that instant. To cause that zygote to cease homeostasis would be to commit murder. To intentionally prevent sperm and ova from fulfilling their intended function, the creation of a human being, is to commit murder by prevention of existence.

In natural sexual intercourse, the machinery of human being creation is started. Once started, if you interfere with that machinery to prevent to coming into of existence of a human being, you have murdered that human being.

If I went back in time to the night that your parents made love to conceive you and I placed a barrier between your father’s sperm and your mother’s ovum, those things which became you, and my intention was to prevent your conception, technically, I would not have committed murder. However, I would have effectively murdered you by preventing your existence.

At least in existence, you have the chance for eternal life in Christ. In non-existence, there is only death. There may be eternal life for the children murdered by their parents in exposure and abortion; there is no eternal life for those contracepted - they are forever dead, having never been alive. Preventing existence is not only tantamount to murder, as a crime, it exceeds murder in severity.

St. John Chrysostom said this on the topic of contraception:

“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.”

• Homilies on Romans, 24 (ca. A.D. 391).

As I have, he too calls it a crime worse than murder. The first man in the Bible to kill another human being is cursed with a mark and a life of wandering. The first man in the Bible to spill his seed is killed immediately.

Which crime did God think was worse? To Cain, God gave a lifetime to repent. To Onan, God gave only instant death and eternal punishment.

I would also like to reiterate what St. John Chrysostom said about fighting God’s laws.

When I told my older brother why it was so horrid for him and his new wife to use contraception, his only response was that because of his mental faculties, God had given him the ability and thus the right to tamper with biological processes. You did not design your body; God did. You did not design how human beings were created; God did. The problem is not that you are using the design to be pleasured. There is no inherent harm in physical pleasure.

The problem is that you are using it for physical pleasure, and because you do not want to care for another human being, you are murdering them by prevention of existence because you tampered with God’s system.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Now that I have posited the sacredness of the gametes (sperm and ova), I must also address a couple of objections. People often say that sperm is wasted naturally because animals masturbate and because men sometimes have wet dreams, and that ova are wasted because women ovulate every month.

First, the reproductive systems of animals, while often quite nearly identical to our own, do not have nearly the same sacredness of purpose. Those systems do not create human beings created in the image of God. Ours do. Now, because animals are beautiful creations of God, we should hope that every animal’s gametes would have at least the chance at life, but because this would result in an overpopulated world, it is morally justifiable to sterilize animals. The semi-sacredness of animals is also why Catholic Christians should be good stewards of the environment.

Secondly, for the wet dreams of men and the ovulation of women. All that God’s moral law requires is that the sacred gametes be given the chance to become human beings. If we went out of our way to ensure that every gamete became a human being, this world would be unlivable. In fact, all organic matter is a potential gamete - to go out of our way to make as many gametes as possible is also a ridiculous task. Men who spill their seed in their sleep do so only because the body demands ejaculation - celibate men like myself do not have the comfort of a wife. Those sperm and ova are produced as potential for the reproductive act. If they are unused for just reasons, then nothing has been prevented.

Ultimately, the purpose of contraception is the prevention of human beings. Prevention of human beings is worse than their murder, because human beings who have existed at least have the chance for eternal life. Every little single flagellum-wagging potential human in your balls deserves at least the chance to become something wonderful. Every floundering egg in your wife’s ovaries deserves the chance to create a being who reflects the divine visage. When you go out of your way to prevent them from becoming a human being, and they would have become a human being if you had only left them alone, you have committed a sin worse than murder. This sin is prevention of existence.

 

[WetCatechumen]

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.

Here is the short answer I’ve promised.

Regular everyday sex results in a sperm being shot towards an egg. If these two meet, a human being is created. If you go out of your way to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg once they’ve been launched, you’ve prevented a human being from coming into existence. This is worse than murder because murdered human beings at least have a chance to live forever. Because of this, all sperm and eggs deserve at least the chance at life, and the use of condoms, vasectomies, tubal ligations, the birth control pill, IUD’s, pulling out, oral sex, and manual sex removes the chance from them.

In song form!

 

[inocente]

(off-topic)

This Baptist site might interest you:
jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/birth_control_unbiblical.htm

Thanks for the link. I know there are many roads to Christ but would not count that as a Baptist site in a million years. Another “Baptist” site, run by extreme atheists, is here.

 

[inocente]

If you go out of your way to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg once they’ve been launched, you’ve prevented a human being from coming into existence. This is worse than murder…

Having read up on Humanae Vitae, that argument is never used. Its just not very appealing. For one, there are millions of sperm in an ejaculation and so there are millions of potential human beings that are “murdered” naturally. Taken to absurdity, it implies that abstinence is a sin because that prevents the sperm and egg from even being given a chance.

However, see next post.

 

[inocente]

I stayed away from this thread for some days, trying to understand Humanae Vitae and natural law for myself. These are my thoughts.

If I were a Catholic then I would say that condoms are wrong, because the doctrine was not arrived at lightly and Catholicism is not a pick-and-mix. But I would also probably try the patience of my priest attempting to reconcile it with 1 Cor 7.

I wanted to know the origin of “natural law”. My strong impression is that it is born out of but is at least one step removed from scripture. That means that I’m out of my depth, not because Humanae Vitae is sophisticated but because I can’t trace some of its conclusions directly back to scripture. For me, as a non-Catholic, that makes the doctrine somewhat risky. I’ve resolved to keep away from any thread that may involve natural law, for fear of upsetting everyone. So see you on another thread.

 

[tjm190]

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.

Buddhism has maintained its teachings far longer the Catholicism- is it even more infallible? If I say the sky is green for the rest of my life does that make it so?

1. 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.

I don’t see anything about infallibility in there… But again, am I aloud to trust my reasoning? If I can trust my reasoning, I don’t need to accept infallibility. If I can’t trust me reasoning, then I can not accept infallibility/

 

[AdamC]

Here is the short answer I’ve promised.

Regular everyday sex results in a sperm being shot towards an egg. If these two meet, a human being is created. If you go out of your way to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg once they’ve been launched, you’ve prevented a human being from coming into existence. This is worse than murder because murdered human beings at least have a chance to live forever. Because of this, all sperm and eggs deserve at least the chance at life, and the use of condoms, vasectomies, tubal ligations, the birth control pill, IUD’s, pulling out, oral sex, and manual sex removes the chance from them.

In song form!

These are my thoughts, based on your answers: Humans are made with an animal side, and a reasonable side. Body and soul. The animal side is what drives us to have sex, but the whole point of Christianity is to deny our basic animal lusts in favour of spiritual growth. Sex, though necessary, is not meant to be a recreational thing (I’ve argued this point before, in speaking out against homosexual practices) but a procreative thing, from a biological standpoint. Though, we (nor any living, sexual creature) would never have sex if we didn’t have that prompting (desire).

I could compare it to the Roman orgies that they had back in the day. Not only did they have sex like freaks, they ate and drank until they were full, then vomited out all the food so they could eat more. So, it goes like this: Eating itself is not a bad thing, it’s a necessary thing. Enjoying your food is not a bad thing, that too is necessary. But to eat simply for the sake of tasting and ingesting, and not for the nourishment of the body, that is a bad thing.

Or like surgery vs. tattoos. It’s wrong to make cuts and marks on your body, but surgery isn’t wrong. Why? Because surgery is necessary sometimes. Tattoos, on the other hand, are not.

It’s starting to make sense now, that it’s the pointlessness of sex without the possibility of children is what makes it wrong. It interrupts the way things are meant to be done.

And besides, sex during pregnancy is OK, isn’t it? I guess once that strip changes colour it’s go time. lol …At least until things get awkward…belly and all…

 

[tjm190]

For the record, tattoos are not considered immoral

 

[tjm190]

Here is the short answer I’ve promised.

Regular everyday sex results in a sperm being shot towards an egg. If these two meet, a human being is created. If you go out of your way to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg once they’ve been launched, you’ve prevented a human being from coming into existence. This is worse than murder because murdered human beings at least have a chance to live forever. Because of this, all sperm and eggs deserve at least the chance at life, and the use of condoms, vasectomies, tubal ligations, the birth control pill, IUD’s, pulling out, oral sex, and manual sex removes the chance from them.

In song form!

So if I go back in time and place a barrier that prevents your conception, I’ve killed you. But if I go back and throw a bucket of cold water on your father and he decides he’s no longer in the mood and they abstain, I’ve… still killed you.
Preventing sperm from meeting egg can be accomplished in multiple ways. You can kill off the sperm (new method in testing- basically you hit the man with a sonogram once every few months), you can keep the sperm from leaving the body (vasectomy), you can send the sperm somewhere else (condoms), you can do your best to assure that there won’t be an egg present at the same time as the sperm (NFP/pill)- or you can just keep the sperm where it is period. Every time I am capable of impregnating a woman and I don’t, I deny a potential human being a chance to exist to a no less extent than a couple that uses contraception does.

 

[WetCatechumen]

So if I go back in time and place a barrier that prevents your conception, I’ve killed you. But if I go back and throw a bucket of cold water on your father and he decides he’s no longer in the mood and they abstain, I’ve… still killed you.
Preventing sperm from meeting egg can be accomplished in multiple ways. You can kill off the sperm (new method in testing- basically you hit the man with a sonogram once every few months), you can keep the sperm from leaving the body (vasectomy), you can send the sperm somewhere else (condoms), you can do your best to assure that there won’t be an egg present at the same time as the sperm (NFP/pill)- or you can just keep the sperm where it is period. Every time I am capable of impregnating a woman and I don’t, I deny a potential human being a chance to exist to a no less extent than a couple that uses contraception does.

In the time travel scenario, yes, the bucket of cold water still makes you guilty of murder (although it could never be proved).

The difference is that God designed the system. Sometimes in your sleep, sperm leave. Once a month, and egg leaves. We can’t possible turn every gamete into a human being. God designed it so there would be plentiful gametes and therefore it would be easy to make humans.

However, when you decide, as my brother has, that you can tweak with God’s design and work around the natural result of the sexual act, which is another human being, that is when you’re committing a grave sin.

 

[AdamC]

For the record, tattoos are not considered immoral

WTF, seriously?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Having read up on Humanae Vitae, that argument is never used. Its just not very appealing. For one, there are millions of sperm in an ejaculation and so there are millions of potential human beings that are “murdered” naturally. Taken to absurdity, it implies that abstinence is a sin because that prevents the sperm and egg from even being given a chance.

However, see next post.

This from Humanae Vitae

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

The whole point Pope Paul VI is making is that when you deprive the sexual act of its natural ability to create life, you’re frustrating God’s plan for what the sexual act should have done - created a sacred human being. It’s preventing the sacred human being who should have been the natural result that is immoral.

 

[WetCatechumen]

These are my thoughts, based on your answers: Humans are made with an animal side, and a reasonable side. Body and soul. The animal side is what drives us to have sex, but the whole point of Christianity is to deny our basic animal lusts in favour of spiritual growth. Sex, though necessary, is not meant to be a recreational thing (I’ve argued this point before, in speaking out against homosexual practices) but a procreative thing, from a biological standpoint. Though, we (nor any living, sexual creature) would never have sex if we didn’t have that prompting (desire).

I could compare it to the Roman orgies that they had back in the day. Not only did they have sex like freaks, they ate and drank until they were full, then vomited out all the food so they could eat more. So, it goes like this: Eating itself is not a bad thing, it’s a necessary thing. Enjoying your food is not a bad thing, that too is necessary. But to eat simply for the sake of tasting and ingesting, and not for the nourishment of the body, that is a bad thing.

Or like surgery vs. tattoos. It’s wrong to make cuts and marks on your body, but surgery isn’t wrong. Why? Because surgery is necessary sometimes. Tattoos, on the other hand, are not.

It’s starting to make sense now, that it’s the pointlessness of sex without the possibility of children is what makes it wrong. It interrupts the way things are meant to be done.

And besides, sex during pregnancy is OK, isn’t it? I guess once that strip changes colour it’s go time. lol …At least until things get awkward…belly and all…

Exactly. You’ve got it. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but once you’ve got it down, the whole idea of contraception starts to horrify you, and it makes more sense everyday.

Gluttony is less of a sin because you’re only messing with part of the things necessary to keep you alive. When you mess with and abuse the mechanism by which human beings come into existence, then you’re encroaching upon the sacredness of human life.

As for sex during pregnancy, menstruation, or infertile periods. Well, it’s not a sin if you’re full, but that last bite of cheesecake looks really delicious and you can’t help yourself. It is a sin if you eat enough to cause you pain, or vomit so that you can eat a lot more.

Hence, she’s pregnant, but it’s okay for you to continue having natural sex. She just won’t get pregnant again while she’s pregnant (maybe - it’s happened before). Menstruation? Well, lots of the Fathers will say it’s a sin. Back then it was probably pretty unsanitary, too. Infertile time? Again, you’re not preventing anything. It’s okay to eat a cookie between meals even if you’re not that hungry. It still nourishes you.

 

[rlg94086]

So if I go back in time and place a barrier that prevents your conception, I’ve killed you. But if I go back and throw a bucket of cold water on your father and he decides he’s no longer in the mood and they abstain, I’ve… still killed you.
Preventing sperm from meeting egg can be accomplished in multiple ways. You can kill off the sperm (new method in testing- basically you hit the man with a sonogram once every few months), you can keep the sperm from leaving the body (vasectomy), you can send the sperm somewhere else (condoms), you can do your best to assure that there won’t be an egg present at the same time as the sperm (NFP/pill)- or you can just keep the sperm where it is period. Every time I am capable of impregnating a woman and I don’t, I deny a potential human being a chance to exist to a no less extent than a couple that uses contraception does.

You are misrepresenting the problem. “Preventing sperm from meeting egg” during the sexual act and/or preventing implantation is sinful. Not having sex is not the same thing as “preventing sperm from meeting egg.”

Particularly silly is your comment: “Every time I am capable of impregnating a woman and I don’t, I deny a potential human being a chance to exist.” As a man, you are capable of impregnating a woman just about every day.

 

[Truthlover]

It is important to point out that Humanae Vitae (HV) is obviously not an infallible statement and was never intended to be so by Pope Paul VI. This is clear from his statement in (10):

“It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”

The objective moral order concerns the whole of HV and if the encyclical was infallible there would be no suggestion of: “right conscience is the true interpreter.” Where a church statement is infallible the statement and “right conscience” always agree so there would have been no need to mention the use of conscience if HV was infallible.

 

[rlg94086]

It is important to point out that Humanae Vitae (HV) is obviously not an infallible statement and was never intended to be so by Pope Paul VI. This is clear from his statement in (10):

“It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”

The objective moral order concerns the whole of HV and if the encyclical was infallible there would be no suggestion of: “right conscience is the true interpreter.” Where a church statement is infallible the statement and “right conscience” always agree so there would have been no need to mention the use of conscience if HV was infallible.

All very interesting, except that HV is not the first or last mention of contraception being a sin. The teaching is infallible, even if HV is not.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
It is important to point out that Humanae Vitae (HV) is obviously not an infallible statement and was never intended to be so by Pope Paul VI. This is clear from his statement in (10)

This is incorrect.
It is vital to understand that the teaching of the Catholic Church against contraception is doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930), in answer to the Anglican capitulation allowing contraception at the Lambeth Conference in 1930.
56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Both Vatican I and Vatican II teach the infallibility of any doctrine taught in a “definitive and absolute” manner by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

This infallible doctrine was repeated by Paul VI infallibly in Humanae Vitae, similarly, under great pressure concerning the possibility of accepting the new contraceptive “Pill” as morally licit.

Every correctly formed conscience will truly interpret the natural moral law which is here explicitly defined against contraception. What is obvious is that the dissenting Catholic either has an incorrectly formed conscience, or chooses to disregard his correctly formed conscience. In the former case he has the opportunity to correct his conscience in accord with the infallible doctrine papal doctrine of Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

It is only dissenting theologians who have perpetrated this gross error against infallible papal doctrine. It should be rejected totally.