Why are condoms wrong?

[Incomplete]

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.

I have not had time to read this entire thread, so my apologies if this has been said.

As far as what to do when you want to have sex and it’s the wrong time, I’m not certain how to answer from a man’s perspective because I’m a woman. But if you can conquer that, it would take care of the rest.

And it’s more important to conquer that than you think, for a couple of reasons.

First, your sex drive might differ from your wife’s sex drive. There are times you are going to have to respect if she has reasons to not want to have sex. If you push it the majority of times you want it and she doesn’t, she’ll may end up feeling used. You already probably know this, so you do know that at times you’ll have to abstain to show you love your wife.

Secondly, you might fall in love with a Catholic woman who believes in NFP. Then what?

Thirdly, consider something else that’s not as uncommon as one thinks. There are times when, because of illness or other reasons, your wife might be unable to make love for long periods of time. I say this with personal experience. I had an extended illness as a result of medical error (several years) that made it difficult for more than very infrequent sex. The prognosis from the doctors was that it might slowly improve or might never improve. Fortunately, I slowly improved. But in the meantime there were long periods of abstinence, and it’s very possible my husband would have had to deal with that for the rest of our lives. His only other options would be to leave me or to commit adultery.

That was awhile ago, but recently another health problem came up, a very painful condition where movement (therefore sex) was excruciating. It lasted several months.

What would you do in those situations? You need to learn self control, with or without NFP.

I know of a couple who used the rhythm method way back when. I hear stories of the ineffectiveness of it, but it worked for them. They had the number of kids they wanted, stopped having kids when they couldn’t afford it.

There was only one time it “failed” (resulting in closer spacing of kids than they desired.) It wasn’t the method that failed; they knew by the calendar that it was a risky night.

They took the risk, and I was born. I also have a child who wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t taken the risk.

If they had used a condom, sure, it might’ve broken. But if God really intervened that way frequently, then nobody would be using artificial birth control because it wouldn’t be effective. If you really believe that God will intervene, then you wouldn’t bother to use birth control of any sort at all.

I think the Church teachings have a lot to do with recognizing human tendencies. (That, and there is some biblical support for this particular teaching.) Just look how things have changed as artificial birth control has become prevalent. There is far less respect for life. I don’t know your age, but in my time I’ve seen a huge sexualization of society.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu you write in post #151:

“You have failed to quote the following vital part of Lumen Gentium 12, which I have found all dissenters omit.”

I am happy for you that you know all “dissenters” and what they omit, but I am sure some of them believe that you are the “dissenter”. Why are these people supposed to be dissenters; is it because they disagree with you and your interpretation of church teaching?

My last paragraph in post #146 reads:

“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.”

As you can see I have underlined that church teaching should be used as guidance, I take that as read always, then you must listen to your conscience. And I mean MUST.

The Second Vatican Council document Gaudium et Spes, the Church in the Modern World, states:

“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.” (No.16)

We will be “judged” on whether or not we obeyed our conscience, the “law written by God”. Amazingly there are “dissenters” who cannot bring themselves to believe the teachings of this Council.

On Papal infallibility Vatican I states:

“we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church”
(intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PH.HTM)

Pope Paul VI did not speak: “EX CATHEDRA” about contraception. That is why he wrote in Humanae Vitae:

“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”

Clearly if his encyclical was infallible the Pope would not have advised the need of using our conscience as the “true interpreter.” Ex Cathedra statements, such as the Assumption of Our Lady, do not leave one in doubt about whether a statement is fallible or infallible.

Paul VI did not see church teaching on contraception as being infallible so it is puzzling that others try to maintain this deception.

 

[Truthlover]

AdamC, here are a number of useful quotes re the primacy of conscience, as taught by the Catholic Church. When the Church issues guidance statements it is a catholic’s duty to read them and use them to form his/her conscience, but it is our conscience which must be obeyed.

The Second Vatican Council document DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM states:

“On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience”(No 3)

“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.” (No 14)

Note that we are to “carefully to attend” to church teaching, not to “blindly obey” it.

As Cardinal, soon to be Saint, John Henry Newman wrote:

“Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.” CCC 1778

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) goes on to say:

“The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience.” CCC1780

“Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” CCC1782

“In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” CCC1785

Here we should note the use of the word “guided” by church teaching, again there is no demand to blindly follow church teaching as that would do away with God’s gift of freewill.

“Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience” CCC1849

Hope you find these useful. Basically they are advising you to find out as much as you can about the use of condoms, married love, etc and then it is your duty to follow your conscience. This appears to be what you are doing and may God continue to guide you.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Why are these people supposed to be dissenters; is it because they disagree with you and your interpretation of church teaching?
(CCC1785) Here we should note the use of the word “guided” by church teaching, again there is no demand to blindly follow church teaching as that would do away with God’s gift of freewill.

1. Having based your argument on members of the Church having to approve a doctrine before it is infallible, and failing to assent to *Lumen Gentium *12 in which the sensus fidei consists **“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,” **you have now abandoned that error. Good. Dissenting theologians should be corrected. The fantasy of labelling doctrine as “my interpretation” is a fallacy because what the Church teaches infallibly is clear from Vatican I, II and all doctrine.
2. The second error in fact is in making the Catholic conscience supreme and above the doctrine of the Magisterium which dissenters claim should be used merely as “guidance”, from which they pick and choose. This is the same error and confusion stemming from feeling that the “faithful” must “approve” doctrine before it is true – now, you feel that conscience must “approve” doctrine before following it!

Freedom of conscience is ONLY freedom to know and follow the truth – that is what gives conscience its primacy.
The conscience which does not seek and follow the truth is an erroneous conscience. Conscience does not make truth – the Catholic Church alone has the fullness of truth. So the truth is that a Catholic’s conscience must be correctly formed according to doctrine from which he has to judge the morality of every action.
Again your quotation from Gaudiem et Spes 16 omits : “Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”

Further: **“In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(**35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood. (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

There is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
Dr Janet Smith puts it beautifully:
In a fact-filled article The Pope Or Conscience? (Catholic Dossier, Jan_Feb ’98), Janet Smith comments: “The blackguards of our Church, however, in the wake of Humanae Vitae invented what might be called a ‘conscience clause’; it is a clause that invokes freedom of conscience to enable Catholics to act in opposition to Church teaching.”
When the U.S. Bishops urged voters to give priority to life, they wrote: “In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Pope Paul VI did not speak: “EX CATHEDRA” about contraception. Ex Cathedra statements, such as the Assumption of Our Lady, do not leave one in doubt about whether a statement is fallible or infallible.
Paul VI did not see church teaching on contraception as being infallible so it is puzzling that others try to maintain this deception.

1. Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.
   From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
   (a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
   (b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
   (c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s *Motu Proprio *(= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that **the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.” **[My emphasis].

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), **moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), **and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.” [My emphasis].

Dissent has no place in Catholic minds and actions. It is very clear that contraception is taught infallibly to be intrinsically evil.

 

[alitaptap]

But why is having sex just to enjoy time with your spouse a misuse? I’m not advocating hook-ups or prostitutes.

Once a friend of St. Francis asked if a man could sin by enjoying sex with his own wife, and the reply was, “Can a man get drunk on the wine in his own glass?”

 

[Abu]

Europe’s Demographic Winter threatening the U.S.A.
Having Children: Anatomy of a Cultural Strategy
…for the first time, the birth rate in the United States has fallen below the replacement level. All of this is finally generating a buzz. If you’re a young Catholic looking for an effective long-term strategy to reclaim Western culture, having a large family should be on your short list.
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=444

The contraceptive mentality (the satanic deception) which led to the abortion mentality has to be clearly understood and reversed through reason and faith for the return of sanity to Western civilization and society. Historian Dr Jeff Mirus has analysed the crisis and offered the truth – the only thing that can set men free.

 

[choose_to_love]

Truthlover:

In Post #161, you state that "clearly if his encyclical was infallible, the Pope would not have advised of the need of using our conscience as the ‘true interpreter’. Based upon the earlier quote about responsible parenthood, the Pope is applying “right conscience” to responsible parenthood, i.e., the decision about whether or not the couple is being called to have a child or postpone.

That is the accurate Catholic position - - the couple is to discern what they are being called to do with respect to acheiving or postponing pregnancy. The Church states that the couple needs serious reasons to postpone, or avoid pregnancy indefinitely, but it does not provide a list of those serious reasons, because the reasons will be very couple- and fact-specific. Right conscience must be applied to the discernment of whether the couple’s reasons are serious or not.

Look at the next two sentences in HV after the one about right conscience being the interpreter: "In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow." (emphasis added). It seems to me that “conscience” is not wholly free, but must be rightly formed.

Note also in Paragraph 14 of HV, where it is noted that the Church must “once more” state that contraception is “intrinsically evil”. Intrinsically, not “if I think it’s not, it’s not”. The Church has always and everywhere taught this truth.

 

[allenirvan]

It’s a thin layer of latex, how could that possibly get in God’s way?

If you really believe this, then why use one at all? Certainly not for moral support

 

[Truthlover]

Choose to love,

Paragraph 10 of HV is saying that conscience must be applied to: “the objective moral order”. The sentence reads:

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

I agree that it is better if a conscience is well formed, but it is then our duty to follow our conscience even if it disagrees with a fallible church teaching.

The problem with paragraph (14) is that it reads:

“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it”

and uses this to affirm that:

“it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

The logic of this for a loving couple, using non-abortive contraception, is that their act of conjugal love is evil. Can we say that the physical love of a loving married couple is evil? No, as God is love and is present during such a loving act evil cannot be present. Evil is the lynchpin of this argument and while it may never be right to do evil that good may come of it, we need to be careful what we call evil, especially when we are talking about a sacrament; marriage.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
I agree that it is better if a conscience is well formed, but it is then our duty to follow our conscience even if it disagrees with a fallible church teaching.

The major error is in the deception that the definitive papal teaching in the Encyclicals Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae against the intrinsic evil of contraception, is fallible!

The second major error for a Catholic is in feeling that he doesn’t have to form his conscience to judge according to Catholic teaching. Even non-infallible doctrine on faith and morals requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…” (Lumen Gentium, 25). In plain English you have to will to follow the papal teaching, and to think with the mind of the Church. Here, you persist in dissent, wilfully choosing not to form your conscience correctly to follow the infallible teaching of Christ’s Church. Conscience does not make truth.

In addition, the problem for Truthlover has arisen because he distorts the function of conscience.
As Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out: “If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.

“He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.

“He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.”

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
The problem with paragraph (14) is that it reads:
“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it” and uses this to affirm that:
“it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”
The logic of this for a loving couple, using non-abortive contraception, is that their act of conjugal love is evil.

This fallacy is precisely what H.V. 7 identifies:
“It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed.”
Married love is defined in H.V. 9:
“This love is above all fully human
It is a love which is total
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death.
Finally, this love is fecund.”

In H.V. 10:
“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.” (10)

Note 10 above refers us to Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) #50-51. And what do we find?
“In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” 14
And to what does note 14 refer? To Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which as we have seen (Post #139) teaches infallibly (# 56) that “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.”

Where on earth is the fantasy that H.V. or ANY doctrine says that “the act of conjugal love is evil”? Nowhere. So there is no “problem” of logic or fidelity with H.V. The problem lies with those who illogically and in dissent try to promote their erroneous spin to use contraception against clear, infallible teaching, from the very beginning. (as choose to love has pointed out). Natural Birth Regulation is conveniently ignored in the haste to promote condoms.

 

[choose_to_love]

Whoo, boy.

Truthlover, what I am understanding you to say is that because HV does not fit specifically within the criteria for an ex cathedra statement, it is therefore a licit conclusion that the teaching contained therein is fallible.

For the purposes of discussion, let’s say that HV does not meet the criteria for ex cathedra. I would submit it is still an infallible teaching, as it has consistently and constantly been taught, as PVI notes at several different places. Just because, arguendo, it is not technically ex cathedra does not mean the Catholic believer is not bound.

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with your attempt to interpret Section 10 as allowing one’s conscience to be the arbiter of what is licit and what is not, and in particular in being able to licitily disobey the Church regarding contraception.

HV 10: “Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter.”

In the second sentence of the above paragraph, “it” refers to responsible parenthood. I suggest, then, that a “right” conscience is the “true” interpreter of how to apply the precepts of responsible parenthood, which are then listed in the following sentence, i.e., the couple’s responsibilities to God, each other, existing family, and society. The right conscience applies those factors to determine if they are being called to achieve or postpone pregnancy. That is where the use of conscience applies.

I would then submit that if the couple determines that they are indeed being called to postpone pregnancy, the means by which they accomplish that legitimate goal are not up to the consciences of the couple. He who hears you, hears me, right? The explicit and constant teaching of the Church has stated that contraception is wrong.

TL: Can we say the physical act of a loving married couple is evil? Absolutely I can, but I think it will turn on what we each think a “loving” married couple is. HV 13: “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 Hubby is fantasizing about a Hollywood starlet or the neighbor during the act, yes that lusting within the act is evil, the objectification of both the subject of the fantasy and the wife. I am sure we could come up with many examples of how the physical act of love may be disordered at best and evil at worst.

Taking our design as male and female, in the image and likeness of the Trinitarian god (where the Father gives Himself to the Son, and the Son receives and reciprocates, whose love is so real it is another person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit) and distorting it by intentionally and purposefully sterilizing the very act by which we are co-creators of new life, is evil. We are called to image that free, faithful, fruitful, and total giving of oneself that we see in the inner life of the Trinity and in Christ’s love for us in His Incarnation and redemptive sacrifice.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu please note “conscience is inviolable.”

On 26 April 1971 the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy published its findings on The Washington Case. The findings can be found in Vatican Council II, Vol. 2: More Post-Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, editor, 1982. Section 5 reads as follows:

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no man is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests”

 

[Truthlover]

Choose to love,

My reflex response to your last post is that your idea of a “loving married couple” is very different from mine. We are talking here about normal practicing Christians who are married and love each other. I do not believe that if they make love using non-abortifacient contraceptives that anyone can say their love making is evil.

I do not know where your scenario came from but it is not my notion of a loving married couple.

 

[choose_to_love]

Hey Truth,

Well, I thought that would be the problem, too, if you’ll recall. But, for purposes of argument, I would agree that our hypothetical contracepting couple is otherwise ordered rightly, or at least as much as one can be ordered rightly while contracepting. Yes, it is still evil to intentionally alter God’s design of our bodies and our fertility in such a way that it sterilizes sex. It makes sex (which is as much “makin’ babies” as “making love”, despite common terminology) into something it was not designed by God to be. The Church has consistently taught this through the ages.

Care to address my other point about right conscience being applied to the factors of responsible parenthood, rather than to the application of the means of carrying out said responsible parenthood? Or the sarcamental nature of marriage, and its reflection of the Trinity and Christ’s love of His Bride, the Church? Put another way, how does contracepted sex reflect that total, free, faithful, fruitful gift of the Persons of the Trinity or Christ’s gift of Himself for the Church?

Gotta run - - hopefully I’ll have time to address more later.

 

[manualman]

I rarely jump into threads when they are already past page 3 when I see them. I confess I haven’t read all 12 pages here. This topic is one that has been discussed here endlessly in the past and I hope the OP does a few searches on the topic. You could literally spend years reading past threads. I also highly recommend “Theology of the Body for Beginners” by Christopher West for those who want to understand.

As for my personal testimony on the matter, my wife and I have used NFP when we’ve discerned a need to avoid pregnancy our whole marriage. Let me tell you bluntly. Anybody who asserts zero difference between NFP to avoid and contraecption to avoid has never really practised NFP. They are entirely different animals. One is like reducing your spending to balance the budget while the other is like achieving the same end by cheating on taxes. In both cases, you may get to a balanced budget, but nobody pretends that makes the methods the same!

At its very root sex is a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality. God invented it to show how self giving love brings life into the world. When you attempt to grab for the sex while purposely sterilizing it, you turn the sex into a physical lie! The body is saying something the soul is NOT. NFP is not the same simply because you don’t GET what you want when you want it. You give it up for a time. That sacrifice makes it possible to keep the sex honest. When you every month prayerfully confront your serious reason not to get pregnant and GIVE UP the mutal desire for each other for those few days, the language of the bodies still tells the truth, even when they come together during the time GOD made infertile.

In short, the reason NFP is so different than ABC is the SAME reason people are so desperate to use ABC instead of NFP to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Truthlover]

Choose to love,

I think we are missing the overall problem with HV here; it fails to persuade and lacks conviction.

In section (12) the Pope states that his argument “is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

Section (13) is troublesome. The Pope says, with regard to the “generative process”, man “is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator” and quotes John XXIII: “Human life is sacred….From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” John XXIII’s statement emphasises that it is “human life” that is sacred. There is no life until conception and non-abortive contraceptives do not contravene this principle. They can be used to “minister” “the design established by the Creator”. This emphasizes right order; it is “human life” that is sacred not the “generative process”.

In addition to say man is not the “master of the sources of life” seems to clash with the words of Jesus to the first Pope: ”And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) In addition, to say, for instance, that: “Contraception is a rejection of God’s view of reality” is to say that any medical advance reject’s God’s view of reality.

Let us examine the differences between NFP and non-abortive contraception. If the woman is fertile on the day in question perhaps the loving couple would abstain from sex if they had no contraception. In fact if they are using contraception there is still a chance that the woman will conceive, whereas under NFP there is no chance as the couple would avoid sex on a fertile day. On this particular day contraception is more procreative than NFP and more unitive. Does that make NFP sinful? Of course not.

The argument in favour of NFP ignores the damage done on the days when the couple should not perform the conjugal act to the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. This damage is not called “sin” but “chastity” when clearly the aim of abstaining is contraception. Accordingly, the argument about the conjugal act being intrinsically evil when using contraception and only having the unitive aspect ( and a very small procreative aspect) could be paraphrased for NFP to being even more intrinsically evil where you have neither the unitive or procreative aspects on that particular day, but I think both these phrases are inappropriate.

I, for one, know many loving Catholic couples who have used contraception, have raised large Catholic families, are good witnesses and are still together. I feel it is very judgmental to denigrate such marriages. I have already quoted Paul VI as referring to conscience and if these couples have informed their consciences their physical love will function as the channel of the special grace characteristic of marriage. We must never forget that God is love and that he is present in a loving marriage, and will not get “out of the bed”. Where there is love, there is God!

On any particular day NFP could be more destructive of the “integrity of the marital act—as unitive and procreative” than the use of non-abortive contraception i.e. with NFP there is no marital act.

One gets the impression in reading Humanae Vitae that Paul VI was not convinced by his own argument against contraception in marriage and threw all the possible consequences in as an afterthought to back up his argument. But it does not. As it has not been shown that non-abortive contraception in a loving, Catholic marriage is more destructive “of the integrity of the marital act—as unitive and procreative” than NFP on a daily basis then this encyclical does not convince.

Regarding the argument that the church’s teaching on contraception was a “long-standing tradition of the Catholic Church” and is therefore infallible, well we will not claim the teachings on slavery, the crusades and the Inquisition were infallible.

Clearly the loving couple during the marriage act are more “united” biologically, psychologically and spiritually using non-abortive contraception than if the marriage act was omitted under NFP.

What is the difference between NFP and no contraception at all? Without contraception (including NFP) the couple is open to the procreative and unitive aspects 100% and they leave conception in God’s hands. With non-abortive contraception (including NFP) the couple avoid conception as best they can until they want to conceive. I am convinced that there are three different approaches to understanding the marriage act and contraception:

1. God made married couples to come together when they are so inclined. Here we have the unitive and procreative aspects in their totality. This is the natural state.

2. Then we have non-natural states such as NAC (which includes NFP). Here the unitive and procreative aspects are compromised to different degrees depending on which method is being used.

3. Finally we have abortifacient contraception. The method here is to kill any embryo conceived. I fail to see how this can be acceptable to any human, never mind God.

Pope Paul VI’s arguments in Humanae Vitae fail to convince us of his conclusion and I believe he would have had a better case if he had defended the position in 1) above. NFP is non-abortive contraception and fits snugly into 2) above .

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
think we are missing the overall problem with HV here; it fails to persuade and lacks conviction.
In addition to say man is not the “master of the sources of life” seems to clash with the words of Jesus to the first Pope: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

How frightfully confused and illogical you are!

1. You quote the establishment of infallibility by Christ to St Peter and immediately conjure a fictitious cleavage with HV by querying the fact that man is not the master of the sources of life and leaving out the reason why – “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.” (HV #13)
   Since the Encyclicals *Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae *teach definitively against the intrinsic evil of contraception to the whole Church by Her Shepherd and Teacher with his apostolic authority, the doctrine is infallible.
   HV is therefore not merely persuasive and convincing but Christ teaching through Peter, reaffirming Casti Connubii.

In addition, to say, for instance, that: “Contraception is a rejection of God’s view of reality” is to say that any medical advance reject’s God’s view of reality.

1. Since condomistic contraception (and every other) is not a “medical advance” but a distortion of medicine just as IVF, human cloning and embryonic stem cell research are, as being against the very reality of the natural moral law and the infallibility to teach on morals given by Christ to Peter and his successors, and confirmed by them, your reasoning is totally fallacious.

You also fail to appreciate that it is through Christ’s Church that science developed.
“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

How frightfully confused and illogical you are!

I feel your quote applies to yourself:

1. If you would rather limit Mt 16:19 to “the design established by the Creator” the effect is still the same; the Pope can “bind upon earth”. What did Jesus say the Pope could bind? “whatsoever”. My argument re HV is logical and clear which is why you are not using logical arguments to refute my approach.
2. Your statement:

“condomistic contraception (and every other) is not a “medical advance”

I will assume is a misunderstanding or semantics.

1. I fail to see the relevance of your assertion that:

“You also fail to appreciate that it is through Christ’s Church that science developed.”

What has this to do with the debate?