Why are condoms wrong?

[tjm190]

I guess NFP has a higher chance of conception–so is still “more open to life”–than using condoms, and NFP doesn’t put an artificial barrier between husband and wife during intercourse, which interfers with the natural union between them.

I don’t agree with the Catholic teaching on this (and don’t consider the thermometer stuff that “natural”), but this is my understanding of the Church’s teaching on the matter.

The teaching is basically that ‘altering’ sex is wrong. For example, if we though altering nature was wrong, it would be sinful to engage in agriculture/animal husbandry, while gathering/hunting would be just dandy.

 

[eonNEXUS]

You talk about this like it’s “God” having the sex. What a complete idiot…

 

[AdamC]

EVERYONE LISTEN UP! I am the OP, and I have this to say, upon praying on the issue:

Yes, NFP is less effective. That’s the POINT! In leaving the sex unprotected, you leave yourself open to pregnancy, and thus, life. We, as faithful Christians, should keep in mind that God will always provide for us. Is this not what we believe? Don’t we all pray to the Lord, in the name of His Son, so that we may have our prayers for security (financial and otherwise) answered? A large family is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. Sure, it’s a lot of work, but if we stop thinking of it as a burden, and consider the level of reward we receive by simply having children around, we quickly realize that it truly is a blessing to have plenty of kids.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean a family of 16. We all don’t need to have our own reality TV shows on TLC. But three or four kids is just fine, isn’t it?

Besides, just because our oversexed society tells us we need to get laid every day of our lives doesn’t mean we really have to.

And besides again, think logically about it. How often do you really get to have sex once you have kids? Are you really up for a sack romp when you’ve been looking after a baby all day, or a toddler, or driving teenagers to hockey practice, etc.? Maybe setting aside a specific day to have a “date night” or whatever isn’t such an outlandish idea, after all.

I, for one, don’t want to put off having a child after I get married. In fact, I look forward to the day I have a couple or a few kids. I’ll burn down a friggin’ condom factory, let alone not use a condom, if it means God will bless me with a family.

So let’s consider this particular thread closed. If you want to keep debating, move it somewhere else. Any mods out there, please lock this.

 

[tjm190]

EVERYONE LISTEN UP! I am the OP, and I have this to say, upon praying on the issue:

Yes, NFP is less effective.

No it isn’t. Well, not necessarily- NFP when used correctly is comparable in it’s effectiveness to other contraceptive methods.

 

[JohnT58]

Besides any of this, doesn’t going out of your way to arrange specific times of the month to have sex amount to the same thing? If condoms get in the way of creating babies, wouldn’t designating special “sex days” do the same?** So why is that sinful? It amounts to the same thing, having sex for the sake of sex. ** Yeah, there’s a bigger chance of pregnancy than with a condom, but the intent is the same.

I have found myself thinking along the same lines. Where does sin occur? Is it in the intent, or the method used? For example, I could have thoroughly planned out a murder, but at the decisive moment failed to carry it out for some reason? Did I not commit a sin because I failed to carry it out even though I intended to? If murder is wrong, does it matter what method is used, gun, knife rope? If contraception is wrong in and of itself, it remains wrong wether it is NFP or condoms. I have found the reasoning as to why NFP is morally acceptable but condoms aren’t. ( I can understand the case for the pill, as often it is abortificient in many cases, the same cannot be said for condoms.)

It would seem to me a lot of what makes a sin is bound up in the intent behind it. Jesus did say Mt.5:28 “But I say this to you, if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

I find the teaching of the Church confusing, while condemning particular forms contraception, it endorses NFP.

“CCC:2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

 

[inocente]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 7:2-5[/BIBLEDRB]
(The NIV is less obtuse to me).

Paul’s stern view of sex in marriage here, as a duty that avoids temptation, is completely unrelated to babies. If anything, it might suggest that birth control would help free the minds of the couple allowing more devotion to prayer.

Unless I’ve missed something, Paul never favors mere copulation (for procreation or any other purpose), and sees sex in marriage as a way to express your love for each other.

I find the teaching of the Church confusing

I think it’s hopelessly out of touch with the New Testament, but then the same can be said for every branch of Christianity.

 

[rlg94086]

[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 7:2-5[/bibledrb]
(The NIV is less obtuse to me).

Paul’s stern view of sex in marriage here, as a duty that avoids temptation, is completely unrelated to babies. If anything, it might suggest that birth control would help free the minds of the couple allowing more devotion to prayer.

Unless I’ve missed something, Paul never favors mere copulation (for procreation or any other purpose), and sees sex in marriage as a way to express your love for each other.

I think it’s hopelessly out of touch with the New Testament, but then the same can be said for every branch of Christianity.

Interestingly, this line of reasoning didn’t appear in Christian churches until the 20th century. Prior to that, everyone pretty much agreed that birth control was a sin (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, et al). Apparently, they missed something and it took someone as bright as yourself to read what is “obvious” in the Bible.

 

[tjm190]

Interestingly, this line of reasoning didn’t appear in Christian churches until the 20th century. Prior to that, everyone pretty much agreed that birth control was a sin (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, et al). Apparently, they missed something and it took someone as bright as yourself to read what is “obvious” in the Bible.

Again- a belief can be indefinitely old or popular, that does not make it true. The passage also seems to point out, quite clearly, that abstinence except for the sake of prayer, is bad. Turns out, NFP requires such abstinence.

 

[rlg94086]

Again- a belief can be indefinitely old or popular, that does not make it true.

So, you believe that the Catholic Church and all of the major reformers were not able to interpret the Bible correctly? That was my point - not popularity of a belief. The moral teaching of the Church is not based on popularity. For Protestants though, this does seem to be the case - that is why they (most of them) dropped their opposition to contraception. Nothing changed in the Bible during the 20th century.

tjm:

The passage also seems to point out, quite clearly, that abstinence except for the sake of prayer, is bad. Turns out, NFP requires such abstinence.

Well, this is what happens when single passages are interpreted by amateurs. I’ll take the guidance of the Church. Thanks.

 

[tjm190]

So, you believe that the Catholic Church and all of the major reformers were not able to interpret the Bible correctly? That was my point - not popularity of a belief. The moral teaching of the Church is not based on popularity. For Protestants though, this does seem to be the case - that is why they (most of them) dropped their opposition to contraception. Nothing changed in the Bible during the 20th century.

You made an appeal to popularity in this very post- “Are you saying you think all these people are wrong?” is in itself an appeal to the popularity or age of a belief. And you’re gonna need some solid proof to show that the Protestants changed their teaching as a direct result of a change in public opinion.

Well, this is what happens when single passages are interpreted by amateurs. I’ll take the guidance of the Church. Thanks.

Ya, I mean the fact that the plain english clearly says that there is only one acceptable reason to stop having intercourse is something that can clearly be ignored.

 

[rlg94086]

You made an appeal to popularity in this very post- “Are you saying you think all these people are wrong?” is in itself an appeal to the popularity or age of a belief. And you’re gonna need some solid proof to show that the Protestants changed their teaching as a direct result of a change in public opinion.

How does questioning whether historical pillars of Christianity were all wrong make “an appeal to popularity?” Solid proof? Can you provide “solid proof” that they had a better reason to change their teaching? Doubtful. You are the one that claimed that the only reason that the belief was there previously is popularity, so it would seem that you are okay in assuming popularity as the cause without “solid proof.”

The Bible didn’t change…what is it about the text that led people to change the teaching?

tjm:

Ya, I mean the fact that the plain english clearly says that there is only one acceptable reason to stop having intercourse is something that can clearly be ignored.

Oh, you must be correct. Paul obviously made his point in “plain english.”

There is no historical reason to accept your analysis. However, you are free to have regular intercourse with your spouse without ceasing, if that is your preference. The Church does not forbid it. Go for it!

 

[Abu]

AdamC et al
The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.

My preference is to use the term Natural Birth Regulation (NBR). It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.

 

[Seatuck]

EVERYONE LISTEN UP! I am the OP, and I have this to say, upon praying on the issue:

Yes, NFP is less effective. That’s the POINT! In leaving the sex unprotected, you leave yourself open to pregnancy, and thus, life. We, as faithful Christians, should keep in mind that God will always provide for us. Is this not what we believe? Don’t we all pray to the Lord, in the name of His Son, so that we may have our prayers for security (financial and otherwise) answered? A large family is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. Sure, it’s a lot of work, but if we stop thinking of it as a burden, and consider the level of reward we receive by simply having children around, we quickly realize that it truly is a blessing to have plenty of kids.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean a family of 16. We all don’t need to have our own reality TV shows on TLC. But three or four kids is just fine, isn’t it?

Besides, just because our oversexed society tells us we need to get laid every day of our lives doesn’t mean we really have to.

And besides again, think logically about it. How often do you really get to have sex once you have kids? Are you really up for a sack romp when you’ve been looking after a baby all day, or a toddler, or driving teenagers to hockey practice, etc.? Maybe setting aside a specific day to have a “date night” or whatever isn’t such an outlandish idea, after all.

I, for one, don’t want to put off having a child after I get married. In fact, I look forward to the day I have a couple or a few kids. I’ll burn down a friggin’ condom factory, let alone not use a condom, if it means God will bless me with a family.

So let’s consider this particular thread closed. If you want to keep debating, move it somewhere else. Any mods out there, please lock this.

Well, for Catholics there is more. Marriage is a sacrament, that makes marital sex a sacramental action. It has a particular theological meaning. It’s how we renew our marriage vows and commitment to each other and to God . When we put something artificial or an action into it that blocks it’s function then that makes it a non marital non sacramental action. You might want to look into some Theology of the Body stuff to explore that further.

 

[inocente]

Well, this is what happens when single passages are interpreted by amateurs.

Yes, we Baptists (noooooo…) do read the Bible for ourselves. To explain an honestly held position, it comes in part from wanting to get back to scripture without the overlay of history, but also from a concern that Christ wants spiritual growth rather than simply following the letter of the law.

Perhaps it would have been better not to admit to being a Baptist (noooooo…). It seems at times that the different churches are more concerned with internal competition than in reaching out, and I’m noticing that defensive tendency after only a few posts. Possibly including yours? I didn’t take it that way. Mark 9:40, although remember I’m only an amateur.

I’m acutely aware of the danger of interpreting passages out of context and reread 1 Corinthians 7 in several translations before making my original post. None of them mention babies, honest guv.

And incidentally (its off-topic, let it go), surely Paul was writing to a church of amateurs.

The only other text I’ve noted on the forum is Genesis 38:8-10 but its meaning, after professionally comparing commentaries, is ambiguous. The article at catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp says that the teaching on contraception is based in the moral concept of natural law, in line with the previous few posts, and that may be old hat to you but is new to me. Does the concept have a basis in scripture, or is its origin more complex?

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, we Baptists (noooooo…) do read the Bible for ourselves. To explain an honestly held position, it comes in part from wanting to get back to scripture without the overlay of history, but also from a concern that Christ wants spiritual growth rather than simply following the letter of the law.

Strawman…the Catholic Church also teaches that Christ wants “spiritual growth rather than simply following the letter of the law.” This makes sense, since Christ gave us the Church for guidance.

inocente:

Perhaps it would have been better not to admit to being a Baptist (noooooo…). It seems at times that the different churches are more concerned with internal competition than in reaching out, and I’m noticing that defensive tendency after only a few posts. Possibly including yours? I didn’t take it that way. Mark 9:40, although remember I’m only an amateur.

I’m a convert. There is no defensiveness, at all - just a realization that someday you may fully understand Christ and come home to His Church. I welcome you as a brother in Christ to CAF in the confidence that you may move from amateur to Catholic.

inocente:

I’m acutely aware of the danger of interpreting passages out of context and reread 1 Corinthians 7 in several translations before making my original post. None of them mention babies, honest guv.

Obviously, you are unaware of what context means if you think that taking several translations of a single passage puts it in context.

inocente:

The only other text I’ve noted on the forum is Genesis 38:8-10 but its meaning, after professionally comparing commentaries, is ambiguous. The article at catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp says that the teaching on contraception is based in the moral concept of natural law, in line with the previous few posts, and that may be old hat to you but is new to me. Does the concept have a basis in scripture, or is its origin more complex?

Summing it up in forum post is virtually impossible. It is complex and does have a basis in Scripture (not either/or). The best thing to do is to read Humanae Vitae, as a start. There are plenty of footnotes that reference the Bible, as well as earlier theological thought. Then, I would highly recommend Theology of the Body.

I’m sure there are also Protestant resources that give biblical reasons to oppose contraception, since the reformers all agreed on this. I don’t know what they are, but perhaps you can dig in and find them. Maybe another non-Catholics personal interpretation might influence your personal interpretation.

 

[tjm190]

How does questioning whether historical pillars of Christianity were all wrong make “an appeal to popularity?”

“Theses dudes believed this- you should too!” is an appeal to popularity.

Solid proof? Can you provide “solid proof” that they had a better reason to change their teaching?

I didn’t claim to know why they changed their teaching- YOU claimed to know that it was because popular opinion shifted. If you can’t prove it, you shouldn’t have said it.

Doubtful. You are the one that claimed that the only reason that the belief was there previously is popularity, so it would seem that you are okay in assuming popularity as the cause without “solid proof.”

I said that? Well it’s a good thing you got it writing, since I’m about to deny that I said that: here it goes- I never made a claim as to why the teaching was there previously. All I claimed was that argument “Well, these guys believed this. So, this is what’s right” was invalid. Lucky you, if I actually said what you think I said, you can prove it.

The Bible didn’t change…what is it about the text that led people to change the teaching?

The teaching changed. We can logically discuss the validity of both teachings to determine which is correct. Or, you can arbitrarily decide “NO!!!1! This one is right cause it was here first!”

Oh, you must be correct. Paul obviously made his point in “plain english.”

There is no historical reason to accept your analysis. However, you are free to have regular intercourse with your spouse without ceasing, if that is your preference. The Church does not forbid it. Go for it!

“Do not deprive each other”
Oh no! Married couples aren’t ever supposed to be abstinent?
“except”
Oh good- turns out there’s an exception to that rule
“by mutual consent”
okay, so they have to agree on it
“and for a time”
and it has to be temporary,
“so that you may devote yourselves to prayer”
and for the sake of devoting themselves to prayer.

The english is very clear in it’s meaning- The only scenario that Paul believes is acceptable to ‘take a break’ is when both parties agree to a set amount of time for the sake of being devoted to prayer.
I assume the translation is accurate- if it isn’t, that’s another problem.

If you believe the context changes the meaning of this text, you are welcome to explain that as well.

 

[mark_a]

How does questioning whether historical pillars of Christianity were all wrong make “an appeal to popularity?” Solid proof? Can you provide “solid proof” that they had a better reason to change their teaching? Doubtful. You are the one that claimed that the only reason that the belief was there previously is popularity, so it would seem that you are okay in assuming popularity as the cause without “solid proof.”

The Bible didn’t change…what is it about the text that led people to change the teaching?

Oh, you must be correct. Paul obviously made his point in “plain english.”

There is no historical reason to accept your analysis. However, you are free to have regular intercourse with your spouse without ceasing, if that is your preference. The Church does not forbid it. Go for it!

These are all good points. Thanks for posting.

This link: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f shows how the Protestants ran off the tracks by turning a blind eye to contraception. The reformers found contraception disgusting, and their need to address the subject shows that it has always been a live wire.

This link: rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html shows the Jewish roots of the Catholic teaching.

And finally from St Augustine:

Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: “For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him” (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).23

All these questions about contraception are really just technicalities to avoid the Catholic teachings that we are to welcome and protect new life.

 

[mark_a]

Yes, we Baptists (noooooo…) do read the Bible for ourselves. To explain an honestly held position, it comes in part from wanting to get back to scripture without the overlay of history, but also from a concern that Christ wants spiritual growth rather than simply following the letter of the law.

Perhaps it would have been better not to admit to being a Baptist (noooooo…). It seems at times that the different churches are more concerned with internal competition than in reaching out, and I’m noticing that defensive tendency after only a few posts. Possibly including yours? I didn’t take it that way. Mark 9:40, although remember I’m only an amateur.

I’m acutely aware of the danger of interpreting passages out of context and reread 1 Corinthians 7 in several translations before making my original post. None of them mention babies, honest guv.

And incidentally (its off-topic, let it go), surely Paul was writing to a church of amateurs.

The only other text I’ve noted on the forum is Genesis 38:8-10 but its meaning, after professionally comparing commentaries, is ambiguous. The article at catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp says that the teaching on contraception is based in the moral concept of natural law, in line with the previous few posts, and that may be old hat to you but is new to me. Does the concept have a basis in scripture, or is its origin more complex?

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

An interesting note, though, is that the link at the bottom of the page is to a rabidly anti-Catholic site.

 

[rlg94086]

“Theses dudes believed this- you should too!” is an appeal to popularity.
I didn’t claim to know why they changed their teaching- YOU claimed to know that it was because popular opinion shifted. If you can’t prove it, you shouldn’t have said it. I said that? Well it’s a good thing you got it writing, since I’m about to deny that I said that: here it goes- I never made a claim as to why the teaching was there previously. All I claimed was that argument “Well, these guys believed this. So, this is what’s right” was invalid. Lucky you, if I actually said what you think I said, you can prove it.

The teaching changed. We can logically discuss the validity of both teachings to determine which is correct. Or, you can arbitrarily decide “NO!!!1! This one is right cause it was here first!”

“Do not deprive each other”
Oh no! Married couples aren’t ever supposed to be abstinent?
“except”
Oh good- turns out there’s an exception to that rule
“by mutual consent”
okay, so they have to agree on it
“and for a time”
and it has to be temporary,
“so that you may devote yourselves to prayer”
and for the sake of devoting themselves to prayer.

The english is very clear in it’s meaning- The only scenario that Paul believes is acceptable to ‘take a break’ is when both parties agree to a set amount of time for the sake of being devoted to prayer.
I assume the translation is accurate- if it isn’t, that’s another problem.

If you believe the context changes the meaning of this text, you are welcome to explain that as well.

I’m content to allow you to hold on to your narrow understanding that couple are never (never!) to deprive each other, except for prayer…you must have an incredibly active sex life at home - 5-6 times a day? More than that?

I will follow the guidance of the Church Christ gave us.

 

[tjm190]

I’m content to allow you to hold on to your narrow understanding that couple are never (never!) to deprive each other, except for prayer…you must have an incredibly active sex life at home - 5-6 times a day? More than that?

I will follow the guidance of the Church Christ gave us.

Perhaps you could broaden my understanding- tell me, what do you think the passage means? And please justify that interpretation.