Why are condoms wrong?

[AdamC]

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation: A couple has six kids. The wife spends her time at home, and is a stay-at-home mom. The husband lost his job after his company went bankrupt. They are running out of food, and the bank is foreclosing on the mortgage. They have absolutely no opportunity to make money, and their entire life is going down in flames. They haven’t had a moment of privacy or fun in months, and are very worried and stressed out. One night, a kind friend of the family offers to babysit so the couple can be alone. The friend of the family gives the husband a condom by slipping it into his pocket and offering a wink, not realizing that as Catholics, this family does not believe in contraception.

Later in the evening, the husband finds the condom is his pocket and shows it to his wife. They’re both confused about where it came from, but toss it in the trash. The watch some TV, but this start to heat up a little. It’s been months since they’ve been alone for any significant period of time. They want to have sex, but it’s the wrong time of the month, and they just plainly do not want to have another kid at this point. It’s unaffordable, and really not a good idea, all-around. So they get to talking about the condom, and eventually just go for it. They have sex, it relieves serious tension, they get to show each other some love, and they don’t have to worry about stretching the budget even thinner than it already is.

This is an extreme situation, obviously. It’s not Saturday night after a bottle of wine, and the kids finally shut off the PS3. It’s a long shot, and maybe not that common, but not entirely unlikely.

Why have this couple sinned? What is sinful about being intimate with each other just for the sake of being intimate?

I can see completely ignoring our responsibility (and gift!) to reproduce and perpetuate the species being wrong. I can see doing weird sexual acts (anal sex, and things like that) as being wrong. I can see viewing each other as purely sexual objects and treating each other as sex toys as being wrong. What my point is, and has always been, is why is it wrong to have respectable, loving, mutually pleasurable, no-strings-attached sex with your spouse? I cannot get my head around it at all! I’ve tried rationalizing it, and I’ve prayed on it a few times. Again and again I come back to the same conclusion, that it makes no sense to call that wrong. Loveless sex is wrong, and sex outside of marriage is wrong. Selfishness is wrong, but there’s nothing selfish about what I described.

 

[AdamC]

theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/catholic-church-to-ease-ban-on-condom-use/

Read that, then answer: How long until condoms are allowed as a means of spacing pregnancies for married couples?

 

[Ponyguy]

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation: A couple has six kids. The wife spends her time at home, and is a stay-at-home mom. The husband lost his job after his company went bankrupt. They are running out of food, and the bank is foreclosing on the mortgage. They have absolutely no opportunity to make money, and their entire life is going down in flames. They haven’t had a moment of privacy or fun in months, and are very worried and stressed out. One night, a kind friend of the family offers to babysit so the couple can be alone. The friend of the family gives the husband a condom by slipping it into his pocket and offering a wink, not realizing that as Catholics, this family does not believe in contraception.

Wait a minute… this (unfortunate) couple has six children? And the neighbor doesn’t realize that they’re Catholic? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/thinking.gif

j/k, of course…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Abu]

Read my lips: Infallible doctrine doesn’t change, never has, never will. The natural moral law is understood even by pagans.

March 18th, 2009
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/9214877/Was_Pope_Benedict_misquoted_on_condoms_in_Africa/
Damian Thompson is Editor of Telegraph Blogs and a journalist specialising in religion.
“So, no fundamentalist restatement of Catholic opposition to condoms; indeed, a fairly nuanced statement. I think we should file this one under ‘Pope Catholic, shock horror.’ ”

Well put!

 

[AdamC]

Wait a minute… this (unfortunate) couple has six children? And the neighbor doesn’t realize that they’re Catholic? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/thinking.gif

j/k, of course…

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/zipmouth.gif

I specifically stated that the friend doesn’t know that Catholics don’t believe in contraception, not that the friend doesn’t know they’re Catholic.

And yes, they have six children. My grandparents had ten, it’s not that outlandish to think someone might have six. I also didn’t say that having six kids was unfortunate, I simply implied that it is expensive.

 

[AdamC]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactational_amenorrhea_method

There is a description of ecological breastfeeding on this Wikipedia page, and it disgusts me. Maintaining closeness with the child in order to “space out” pregnancies? Spacing out pregnancies requires not getting pregnant, and the whole point of this method is to reduce fertility, so this obviously has nothing to do with abstinence. Abstaining from sex means not having sex, and if you’re not having sex, what difference does it make how fertile a woman is? This has to do with using your child as a tool to manipulate your body’s natural cycles in order to increase the opportunities for sex without pregnancy. This is a putrid thing.

The same thing can be said about other methods of NFP, though they aren’t nearly as repugnant. The whole point of abstaining from sex during fertile periods and only engaging in it during infertile periods is to decrease the likelihood of having a child. It’s pregnancy avoidance, which granted, isn’t the same thing as pregnancy prevention. At least not in practice, it isn’t. In terms of intention, though, it’s exactly the same thing. You can argue it’s not because the act is still open to the possibility of life, but that is an irrelevant point. What is relevant is the fact that people engage in this with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, because they do not want a pregnancy. To paraphrase an old saying, “the means don’t justify the ends”. The intended goal is to not have a child at the particular point in time, which is the same argument I’ve been making all along for the usage of condoms. With condoms and NFP, the INTENDED (repeat, INTENDED!!!) goal is to not get pregnant. The fact that you used one method instead of the other is irrelevant to the fact that you have intentionally gone out of your way (condoms vs. calendars) to not have a child. Whether in the vagina or in a ‘bag’, the seed is ‘wasted’. It does not result in pregnancy, and the point of the sex was sex. If the point of sex under NFP was a child, then the couple would engage in sex only during periods of high fertility.

There is the argument that is stated regarding using NFP for selfish purposes, and not just for spacing children, and that is that it is immoral. What constitutes ‘selfish’? If having sex for the sake of sex is selfish, then NFP is a purely selfish system. It provides couples with an opportunity to engage in sexual activities without wanting a kid to come of it. If this is not the intention of the people using it, WHAT COULD THE INTENTION POSSIBLY BE??? It surely is not to get pregnant, otherwise the couple wouldn’t be practicing NFP.

Saying NFP is OK as a means to “space out” children, but condoms are wrong, is like saying it’s OK to get drunk on beer, but not on whiskey. Both get me drunk, both achieve the same goal.

Either both NFP and condoms are OK, or both aren’t. There cannot be a double-standard. Again and again people say that condoms interfere with God’s plan. How does coming up with your own plans NOT interfere with God’s plan? NFP is like saying “Lord, I don’t like your way of doing things, so I’ll do them on my schedule, and hopefully things turn out better. But yeah, you know, you can have a little (name removed by moderator)ut.”

Abortion kills. The pill screws with your body, and in some cases kills too. Plan B pills kill. Condoms do not, they prevent, which is the same thing as NFP, as far as intentions go.

Children are a gift from God, absolutely. Life is sacred, absolutely. If spacing out children using NFP in order to maintain a stable household is acceptable, so are condoms. It’s the same intention, which means that in essence, they are the same thing.

To call condoms evil because some people use them for selfish, unwed, lustful encounters is like calling hammers evil because some people use them to kill.

The Church needs to reconsider the issue, and the issue is not the condom, the issue is a selfish life without the blessing of children, and without meeting our responsibility to have children. That responsibility does not equal pumping out kids every nine months, obviously. NFP or condoms, they do the same thing, they provide the opportunity for a married couple to engage in sexual acts and avoid temptation (keeping Paul’s commandment) and to have children according to a logical order, in keeping with their means and situation. Have as many kids as possible, I absolutely will too. But the key term here is “as possible”.

 

[Truthlover]

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,.

The fact Pope Paul VI asked people to use their conscience in the encyclical Humanae Vitae was to show that he did not believe the church teaching on contraception was infallible. The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, reads as follows:

“The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. (No.12)”

This is very interesting as it means a church teaching cannot err when the “entire body of the faithful” agrees i.e. there is “universal agreement”. As the majority of Catholics appear to believe non-abortifacient contraceptives are acceptable then any teaching against their use cannot be infallible.

As the teaching is fallible then one should inform his/her conscience and then make a judgement which he/she must obey as Gaudium et Spes, the Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the modern world, phrases so well:

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (No. 16)”

We must obey: “a law written by God” in our hearts, our conscience. It is our duty to use church teaching as guidance and we need a good reason to disagree. In the final analysis we must follow our conscience which: “reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.”

 

[rlg94086]

Why have this couple sinned? What is sinful about being intimate with each other just for the sake of being intimate?

They sinned by using artificial birth control…culpability may be lessened in this bizarre scenario you proposed though - that’s between the couple and their confessor. The marital embrace is both unitive and procreative.

AdamC:

I can see completely ignoring our responsibility (and gift!) to reproduce and perpetuate the species being wrong. I can see doing weird sexual acts (anal sex, and things like that) as being wrong. I can see viewing each other as purely sexual objects and treating each other as sex toys as being wrong. What my point is, and has always been, is why is it wrong to have respectable, loving, mutually pleasurable, no-strings-attached sex with your spouse? I cannot get my head around it at all! I’ve tried rationalizing it, and I’ve prayed on it a few times. Again and again I come back to the same conclusion, that it makes no sense to call that wrong. Loveless sex is wrong, and sex outside of marriage is wrong. Selfishness is wrong, but there’s nothing selfish about what I described.

Have you read everything the Church has to say on it? Have you read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? If not, do so.

 

[tjm190]

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.

Your argument was that it was wrong to deny a potential unborn human being the chance to exists, and since contraception results in fewer unborn human beings than non-contraceptive sex it is wrong. However, abstinence results in fewer still conceptions, so even more potential people don’t get to be conceived.

 

[tjm190]

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.

I was responding to the argument that was presented- if it is wrong to deny a potential human being a chance at eternal existence, then not having sex at every possible opportunity is wrong.

 

[Abu]

AdamC
To call condoms evil because some people use them for selfish, unwed, lustful encounters is like calling hammers evil because some people use them to kill. The Church needs to reconsider the issue, and the issue is not the condom.

The fact that some choose to place a barrier against marital union, on that reasoning, opens the use of the sexual faculty to masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality as per choice. The analogy you offer is absurd and has no relation to reality. The pleasure becomes the real end rather than the accompaniment to God’s plan.

Christ’s Church has extensively and intensively identified the grave error in marital relations that prostitutes the natural moral law by deliberately placing a barrier against conception in the use of chemical, condomistic or other defiling intercourse. She has, with the authority of Christ, infallibly proclaimed the grave evil in such activity. The reconsideration required is from those who degrade reason and God’s constitution of the human being, even acknowledged by pagans, and ignore the fact that Christ Himself gave Her the power to bind and loose.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
This is very interesting as it means a church teaching cannot err when the “entire body of the faithful” agrees i.e. there is “universal agreement”. As the majority of Catholics appear to believe non-abortifacient contraceptives are acceptable then any teaching against their use cannot be infallible.
It is our duty to use church teaching as guidance and we need a good reason to disagree. In the final analysis we must follow our conscience which: “reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.”

You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the line of dissent espoused by unfaithful theologians. Study Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, and Vatican II’s *Lumen Gentium *12.

You have failed to quote the following vital part of Lumen Gentium 12, which I have found all dissenters omit.
**“It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(**112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.

Fr Austin Flannery’s Vatican II is very clear:
“By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, Lumen Gentium (LG) Vatican II, my emphasis]

AS Fr John A Hardon, S.J., writes: The *universitas fidelium *(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12 [Fr John A Hardon, *The Catholic Catechism, P 225-227] constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” (Fr Hardon). Those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.

The dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Vatican I specifies faith and morals, and that “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.” [1870 dogma from *Pastor Aeternus]. Thus no other agreement is necessary.

So if a majority of Catholics may feel that a condom or other contraceptive is fine, this would show clearly that they dissent from Christ’s teaching delivered infallibly by the Popes as taught by Vatican I and Vatican II. The false assumption for which you have fallen is part of the chaos promulgated by dissenting theologians and needs to be totally rejected, for the correct formation of conscience.

CCC#1792 includes “assertion of a mistaken notion of the autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s teaching authority… these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”

 

[AdamC]

The fact that some choose to place a barrier against marital union, on that reasoning, opens the use of the sexual faculty to masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality as per choice. The analogy you offer is absurd and has no relation to reality.

It opens the door to bestiality? Really? You’re saying that married couples who use condoms will eventually end up bringing the family dog into the bedroom? Maybe another dude from the office to give the wife a show? And somehow, sexual release will lead to masturbation? Why would you need to masturbate when you can have sex? And you call my words absurd and unrealistic…

The pleasure becomes the real end rather than the accompaniment to God’s plan.

The pleasure doesn’t become the real end. The real end becomes to show your spouse how much they mean to you by trusting them completely and fully to be naked and exposed. Exposed in every way, not just physically. It’s a private affirmation and declaration of that love that was originally announced before God and man. But yes, it is about pleasure as well. Pleasure isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing, especially when it is shared between two people who have sworn to sharing their lives together.

Christ’s Church has extensively and intensively identified the grave error in marital relations that prostitutes the natural moral law by deliberately placing a barrier against conception in the use of chemical, condomistic or other defiling intercourse. She has, with the authority of Christ, infallibly proclaimed the grave evil in such activity. The reconsideration required is from those who degrade reason and God’s constitution of the human being, even acknowledged by pagans, and ignore the fact that Christ Himself gave Her the power to bind and loose.

So you’re a big fan of the double-standard, then? One method of avoiding pregnancy is OK, but another is not? The Church is mistaken on this one, I’m sorry to say.

BTW, if they have the authority to bind AND LOOSE, that means they can reconsider this issue. Oh look at that, am I degrading reason again by using logic?

(To be clear, I am not advocating any kind of contraceptive besides condoms.)

 

[Abu]

AdamC
You’re saying that married couples who use condoms will eventually end up bringing the family dog into the bedroom? So you’re a big fan of the double-standard, then? One method of avoiding pregnancy is OK, but another is not?

Another demonstration of the absurd rejection of reason – unable to see that having broken the objective of procreation by a deliberate barrier to suit pleasure, it can be broken for any reason to suit pleasure –which is justified by those who do so. No one says all who contracept practice bestiality, or anyone here – they just don’t reason correctly from cause to effect. Similarly from masturbation to cloning to IVF. That’s, precisely how these destructive ideas developed. Face reality.

As God has provided the infertile cycles, and nowhere commanded against their use, but rather enabled their use through God given human reason with cause and effect through science, supported by His authority given to His Church, as long as it is not misuse (without good reason), reasonable people recognise the benefit of this. That is precisely why it is morally good. The idea of using intercourse for pleasure at the same time deliberately placing a barrier to thwart conception is simply unreasonable and illogical by the natural moral law, and by Christ’s Church.
Your illogical bent is once again manifest, and the birth dearth, the rise of abortions from failed contraception all show the lack of reason.

BTW, if they have the authority to bind AND LOOSE, that means they can reconsider this issue. Oh look at that, am I degrading reason again by using logic?

No comprehension at all here – face reality on the authority given by Christ – the words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.
**Facing Reality
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.

 

[Abu]

How the contraceptive mentality affects the abortion mentality
62% having abortions were using contraception

From Australia: A Flinders University study of 965 women over 30 who used Adelaide’s largest abortion clinic found 62 per cent were using contraception when they became pregnant.
adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/abortion-not-used-as-birth-control/story-e6frea83-1225874718678

 

[AdamC]

Your illogical bent is once again manifest, and the birth dearth, the rise of abortions from failed contraception all show the lack of reason.

No, your illogical bent is obvious. I am not talking about a lack of desire for children, I’m talking about a desire to WAIT TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN. A condom breaks, tough luck. I guess God wants you to have a kid now instead of later. I specifically said in an earlier post that it is impossible to get in God’s way of creating life. No morally right parent would abort their child just because it doesn’t fit with their plan.

No comprehension at all here – face reality on the authority given by Christ – the words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his.

Is that so? Then how did the Church change the day of celebration from the seventh day to the first (or eighth, however you want to look at it)? And don’t make excuses about the apostles being the first ones to practice it, because the apostles where the ones who changed it. They first the first to celebrate on Sunday, and they did so according to the authority Christ granted them. That line of scripture refers to the Church’s authority to set and change laws as is required.

The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act.

Explain the “human act” to me more clearly, then. As I understand sex, it is from a biological standpoint done to procreate. Taking that into consideration, we are designed by God to have sex to procreate. That’s true, absolutely. I’m not trying to eliminate our responsibility (and right!) to having children. I’m advocating condoms as a method to space childbirth.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.

What the F___ are you talking about??? I AM NOT CONDONING ADULTERY. SEX IS THE FUSION OF ONE PERSON SPIRITUALLY AND PHYSICALLY WITH ANOTHER. I AM ADVOCATING SEX WITH ONE PERSON; YOUR SPOUSE. (I’m not yelling, just typing big.)

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH in vitro fertilization AT ALL. That is a method of procreation that removes the act of love, I am talking about the dead opposite of that. I am talking about the act of love with the possibility of procreation highly limited, in order to maintain a realistic number of children and an economically sound household.

And cloning? Do you just have a hat with a bunch of labels inside? I feel like I’m in a cross between the Twilight Zone and Mad Libs. Nothing makes sense.

The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.

During the mid 20th century, people honestly believed that the world would become overpopulated and we would not have enough food to provide for the world’s population. But, because of increased economic prosperity in the third world (and everywhere) those poor countries are moving into the first world. As they do so, it becomes less necessary to have as many children. Previously, in agrarian societies, many children were needed in order to maintain the family farm, and earn a living. Now, in poor countries which do not have property social services to care for the elderly, it is still necessary to have a lot of children in order to have someone around to care for you in your old age. Also, in an environment that is low in medical help and food, having plenty of kids is necessary because there is a good chance they might die before adulthood. However, as these societies become richer they no longer need to have as many children, because these problems are being solved. As these problems are solved, the population increase around the world begins to slow. One of the main contributions to this slowing increase in population is CONTRACEPTION. Frankly, we need to effectively maintain family size in order to make sure that the world’s population remains reasonable so that we can provide everyone with enough resources without straining them. This DOES NOT MEAN that we should abort pregnancies to maintain population.

 

[Abu]

AdamC
I’m advocating condoms as a method to space childbirth.

We are aware of your hang-up ad nauseam – same immorality – deliberately separating the act from its major end.

As post #191 informed you, “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.” So we can have the right intention and a moral method that is far more effective than condoms.

As the eminent moralist Fr Stephen Torraco (EWTN) has informed you: “You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

Binding and loosing:

refers to the Church’s authority to set and change laws as is required.

Will your incomprehension never end? You continue to stumble in where angels fear to tread. Of course it does, hence the fixing of Sunday for Holy Mass by Christ’s Church.
“The ‘binding and loosing’ (rabbinical terms for excluding from (‘binding) or granting readmission to the community or for declaring permitted or forbidden according to the Law) must be understood as containing all that is implicit in the gift of the keys, i.e. all powers necessary to the well-being of the kingdom including any positive legislative power which may prove necessary in the future.” Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Dom Bernard Orchard, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1952, p 881].
When you can understand the level of authority Christ has given His Church you might better understand Her capacity to explain His natural moral law and Her prohibition of contraception under any circumstances.

Similarly you are woefully lacking in knowledge of the demographic winter which has engulfed Europe due to the contraceptive mentality leading to the abortion mentality, which you seem incapable of assimilating.

demographicwinter.com
“Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.” Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.

 

[PassingThru]

How the contraceptive mentality affects the abortion mentality
62% having abortions were using contraception

From Australia: A Flinders University study of 965 women over 30 who used Adelaide’s largest abortion clinic found 62 per cent were using contraception when they became pregnant.
adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/abortion-not-used-as-birth-control/story-e6frea83-1225874718678

You usually use long winded philosophical quotes to answer a simple question, while usually not answering it. But I have to say, if this is how you attempt use hard facts, I would recommend sticking to rambling quotes.

Lets assume this number you just proudly posted is accurate. This is the worst use of stats to make a claim I have seen in a while. This is your evidence that ABC leads to abortions?

ABC could lead to an increase in you chance to have an abortion for all I know. What I do know is that this % posted above does absolutely nothing to establish this fact.

Actually, you are likely making the case for the opposite side. Lets assume 80% of a population use contraception. It is higher in the US and likely higher in Australia. Ill use 80% as a conservative number. You do realize that what you are saying with your 62% number is that you are TWICE as likely to get an abortion if you DO NOT use contraception, right? And, this is not corrected for the frequency of sex, the effect of unprotected sex on the population using no contraception, both of which would likely further make your case worse.

I am not in any way advocating that using ABC will lessen your likelihood to seek an abortion. What I am saying is you need to stick with rambling answers that no one can hold you to.

Sorry, that sounded really harsh, but the fact that you really think this 62% helps establish this link shows some weakness in your logic that I can actually attest to, as I have no idea what most of your posts are even trying to establish.

 

[AdamC]

We are aware of your hang-up ad nauseam – same immorality – deliberately separating the act from its major end.

It’s not a hang-up, it’s a concern. I want to get married and have kids, but I want to be able to have a life that isn’t exploding out of control. I don’t want any more than two or three children, in all honesty. I want a small family, and I don’t want to have to worry about trying to be abstinent. I can’t keep myself from having sexual thoughts right now! How will that work if I have a wife around? What do I do when I wake up in the morning with the same old problem and it’s not the right day? I’m honestly asking this. I’m trying to learn about the Church, and if I’m wrong about my ideas on contraception, I want to know what is to be done. And don’t just say prayer, there has got to be something tangible.

Will your incomprehension never end?

I sure hope it does. All I wanted was to understand, and I can’t.

 

[Abu]

AdamC
More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.

Unfortunately our society has degenerated into a morass of immorality and confusion.Taking charge of our own lives according to the precepts of faith and morality given to us by Christ through His Church is the only way to overcome the effects of Original Sin.

The tried and trusted way is also to consult those who are faithful to Christ for help. We need to be ever watchful and vigilant and not put off the necessary means. We need spouses who are similarly directed to the right values and virtues.

Accepting what God sends us in marriage, while acting morally, will enable His grace to affect our lives.