Why are condoms wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdamC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth, but it seems to me that we should rely on our “well formed conscience”, only when the Church has NOT given us the Truth already. I believe it is one of the corner stones of our faith that Jesus will keep his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. To beleive our conscience over the word of the Church is the same as not having faith in Christ’s promise. God bless.

John
 
Who uses condoms to try to get pregnant? No one, right? Therefore, using a condom turns sex into something not procreative, which is contrary to its purpose.[bibledrb]Genesis 38:8-10[/bibledrb]Condom use is no different, only now one is spilling one’s seed onto latex instead of the ground. It is masturbating inside a woman’s body.
 
Just to make a little interesting point, condoms in themselves aren’t evil, they are merely an object. It is all about the purpose of use and intent.

The church has allowed the use of specialized condoms that still allow some sperm to get through. However, these condoms are meant for sperm collection for the sake of fertility analysis.

I have heard of condoms being used for non-sexual purposes, but those are so rare that it really wasn’t worth mentioning.

All a condom is is a little latex container (for lack of a better word). By itself, it is neither good nor evil, it just is. It is an inanimate object.

The use of condoms to prevent birth is the problem.
 
Truthlover
It is clear that both of you do not agree with the Second Vatican Council document Dignitatis Humanae that “a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God”(3).
Click to expand...
You obviously are not a lover of truth for you choose to omit from *Dignitatis Humanae *the prior truth in #3 that “Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

You obviously are not a lover of truth for you choose to ignore in *Dignitatis Humanae *#1: that “this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men…. On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

“This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

You obviously are not a lover of truth for from post #163 you saw that “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).

When you really love the truth who is Christ, you will assent to Him through His Church. Conscience does not make truth. Faithful Catholics form their consciences in, with and through Christ’s Church and then act in, with and through that correctly formed conscience, in truth.
 
JohnCS said:
This is just my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth, but it seems to me that we should rely on our “well formed conscience”, only when the Church has NOT given us the Truth already. I believe it is one of the corner stones of our faith that Jesus will keep his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. To believe our conscience over the word of the Church is the same as not having faith in Christ’s promise. God bless.

John
Click to expand...
I agree 100% as many teenagers will tell you they have a well formed conscience as they crawl into a tanning bed, smoke a doobie, have premarital sex, with or without a condom, so as long as they have a clear conscience they are “Good-to-Go”. Using that logic Hitler and Himmler were good to go, and so was Sanger. My conscience tells me this is flawed thinking. Many alcoholics and drug addicts believe they are not addicts. I think many people that “Think” they have a well formed conscience are not comparing it to Church teaching. I think you are right that if you are opposed to published doctrine you are likely in denial…😊

Cheers…“It’s past 5 o’clock here…:)”
 
Facing Reality
Take heart all you good people and continue to fight the good fight!

catholicnewsagency.com/news/re-center-marriages-from-contraception-to-christ-author-says/
Re-center marriages from contraception to Christ, author says

**New York City, N.Y., July 1 (CNA) **.- Patrick McCrystal, an Irish pharmacist and pro-life leader, has authored a book on the effect contraception has on marriages and on society as a whole. He calls contraception “a most potent destroyer of marital harmony,” urging couples to re-center their marriages upon Jesus Christ.

This week he is in New York City for the launch of his second book, “Who’s at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ?”

The contraceptive pill marked its 50th anniversary this year, provoking a variety of reactions. Time Magazine celebrated the creation of “the first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick.”

However, movie star Raquel Welch published a commentary in the Daily Mail blaming the Pill for the decline of marriage, which she called “the cornerstone of civilization” that stabilizes society and provides a “sanctuary” for children.

“Most would be surprised to see me and Raquel Welch lining up on the same side of a debate, but she makes some very smart and accurate points in her column,” McCrystal commented. “While her diagnosis is correct, my book goes a step further to offer the prescription that can help heal ailing couples: re-centering their marriage on Christ.”

McCrystal stopped dispensing the contraceptive pill in 1993 because of its abortion-causing effects. Because of this, he lost his job and was unemployed for three years.

He has since spent thousands of hours in research, writing and speaking internationally on contraception and related issues.

Presently the chairman of Human Life International’s Ireland office, he resides in Northern Ireland with his wife Therese. He is a father of five children.

On Friday the writer will be joined in New York by Tony and Ann Crowe, a young Irish couple who will explain how contraception almost destroyed their marriage.
 
NEWCATHOLICJEFF]
I think many people that “Think” they have a well formed conscience are not comparing it to Church teaching. I think you are right that if you are opposed to published doctrine you are likely in denial…
Click to expand...
That American pragmatist, William James, put it well: “Many people who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
 
“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

The Pope states the primacy of conscience very well! See below for full details:

Part of an Address by Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR:

At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world … on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human Church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Fr Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II: “Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

The full Address can be found at: thetablet.co.uk/article/14990
 
But how about a couple with STD? According to a report, married women in Africa have a higher risk of contracting STD from her husband than a single woman. What if the husband have HIV? Then they can’t have sex no more?

I agree with all the teachings, yet I don’t understand about the position of the Church on condom. How can a couple enjoy the pleasure of God’s gift while worrying about having a baby every single time they have sex?
 
UnityofTrinity said:
But how about a couple with STD? According to a report, married women in Africa have a higher risk of contracting STD from her husband than a single woman. What if the husband have HIV? Then they can’t have sex no more?

I agree with all the teachings, yet I don’t understand about the position of the Church on condom. How can a couple enjoy the pleasure of God’s gift while worrying about having a baby every single time they have sex?
Click to expand...
Because the Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means - you cannot use an immoral means to come to a good end.

Also, there is a failure rate of condoms.

How about instead of saying the couple can no longer have sex - the husband stop committing adultery?
 
Truthlover
“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”
Click to expand...
The Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, affirmed: “It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at – in fact one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being.” [meaning: the original memory of the good]. “The guilt lies much deeper – not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” The Priest, Autumn, 1993].

Cardinal Ratzinger: “In contrast to the statements of Gladstone, Newman sought to make a clear avowal of the papacy…a papacy not put in opposition to the primacy of conscience but based on it and guaranteeing it. For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” (The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

It’s not rocket science – it’s simple – as John Paul II warned in *Veritatis Splendor *#64, ….“ ‘freedom of conscience’ is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

In The Pope Or Conscience? (Catholic Dossier, Jan – Feb ’98), Janet Smith explains: “Many theologians seem to have decided that the Church and the Pope are an obstacle to freedom of conscience; they so loathe blind obedience that they are much more comfortable with blind disobedience. For several decades now, in many seminaries, seminarians have been taught not to trouble the consciences of the faithful about contraception; the “faithful” should be left free to follow their consciences on this issue. Textbooks used in many Catholic high schools generally feature this clause after perfunctorily noting the Catholic condemnation of contraception. It is fascinating that the “conscience clause” never appears in the sections on racism, or genocide, or social justice. These texts do not say that if your conscience tells you it’s morally permissible to be a racist, then you are permitted to be a racist. It only appears in the sections on contraception. Blackguards!”

Until you assent to the fact that, as a Catholic, your conscience cannot judge correctly on any moral action until it is formed by the doctrine of Christ’s Church, you condemn yourself to wallow in that selfism which places you among the blackguards of Dr Janet Smith, for you now know clearly what Vatican II and the Popes teach on the formation of conscience.

Christ did not give us His Church and His authority to the Popes to infallibly proclaim truth from error for us to cavalierly throw it away without dire consequences.
 
Hi Adam
I’m not Catholic, so I don’t know all the Catholic commandments and such, but I do believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between man, woman and God. This covenant not only allows for the sacred priviledge of procreation, but allows the man and woman to become one. I don’t believe that sex is only for procreation. Sex allows the man and woman to unite in a beautiful relationship with God. Why would God give us such a beautiful gift and not allow us to use it to express our love to our spouse? It does not make sense.

Also, I believe in trusting God when it it comes to procreation, but I do believe that there are reasons to wait. My husband and I are very fertile, and if we never used condoms, we’d have a kid every year. That would not be logical, we can’t afford a child a year, and it would destroy us emotionally. I don’t believe that God would want that for us.

As I said before, sex within the bonds of marriage is the most binding act we can do as a couple. It ties us together emotionally, spiritually and physically. I cannot believe that God would only allow us to perform this act to create children.
 
kenamety
if we never used condoms, we’d have a kid every year.
Click to expand...
The ends never justify the means – which clearly identifies the objectively grave wrongness of deliberately blocking the marital act.
The same God-given reason based on faith that enabled the development of science through Christ’s Catholic Church, enabled the development of the understanding of the God-given infertile period and how to identify this, and since there is no divine command to use only the fertile periods we can reason that if we have serious reasons to limit our family we can make use of the infertile periods for a time or, if serious enough, for ever. His Church has given us the assurance that used thus, this is morally good, and does not involve deliberately blocking the marital act but means cooperating with God.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Because the Church teaches that the ends do not justify the means - you cannot use an immoral means to come to a good end.

Also, there is a failure rate of condoms.

How about instead of saying the couple can no longer have sex - the husband stop committing adultery?
Click to expand...
I agree completely. It seems that adultery has become a thing of a cultural norm. Church should focus on teaching more about how the couples should resist temptations, focus on serving God not the needs of flesh. It’s not easy i know but sexuality is very important part of married life and it should not be so taboo within church.
 
An interesting quote from pages 209 and 210 of The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse: From St. Paul to Pope John Paul II by Robert Obach:

“It was not until the eighteenth century that the greatly respected moral theologian, St. Alphonsus Liguori, held that it was morally permissible to engage in marital intercourse without the intention to conceive a child. This same theologian also taught that spouses could seek sexual pleasure in the marital act provided that they were not principally seeking such pleasure. As this book has pointed out, churchmen have depreciated the element of sexual pleasure in the marital act and have discouraged married persons from finding pleasure in that very act.”

On page 211 the author states:

“that the pilgrim church’s doctrine on marital intercourse could belong more to the realm of development than it does to the realm of “the fullness of divine truth.” This author affirms that, when it comes to church teaching, there is “always a presumption in favour of the magesterium.” On the other hand, it is a fact that church doctrine develops. Some theologians rank the prohibition of contraception with the great dogmas that will never change because this teaching belongs to the realm of “the fullness of divine truth.” These theologians conclude that the teaching condemning artificial contraception is infallible. Other theologians argue that this teaching is not infallible.”

Obach demonstrates well in his book how slow church doctrine has been to develop regarding the marital act and that it is still developing. I am sure that St Alphonsus Liguori’s new teaching allowing married couples to “engage in marital intercourse without the intention to conceive a child” was frowned upon in certain quarters in the eighteenth century. In fact it appears that there are theologians in the present day who have difficulties with this concept.
 
Truthlover
it is a fact that church doctrine develops. Some theologians rank the prohibition of contraception with the great dogmas that will never change because this teaching belongs to the realm of “the fullness of divine truth.” These theologians conclude that the teaching condemning artificial contraception is infallible. Other theologians argue that this teaching is not infallible.”In fact it appears that there are theologians in the present day who have difficulties with this concept.
Click to expand...
Scrounging around for something to try to discredit the infallible doctrine against contraception is really queer for a self-proclaimed Catholic – does nothing to form a conscience correctly. Why regurgitate confusion? There will always be some theologians who dissent from infallible doctrine – and they have no credibility because of their dissent.

A development of doctrine is never contradictory – how could it be? An infallible doctrine does not depend on the agreement of any theologian and cannot be changed to contradiction.
 
Abu,

If you cannot make a point without misquoting me then the point is not worth making.
 
Hello again truth

Well, you could respond to Abu’s point that development of doctrine would not involve an about-face from prior doctrine.

Anyway, you seem like a thoughtful poster, and I posted this in another thread sort of relating to primacy of conscience: But on a more substantive matter, what does it mean to you, (truthlover), to be big-C Catholic if you can, as you say, assert the primacy of your conscience on matters on which the Church has clearly spoken definitively? You do not accept what the Church teaches. As I understand it, communion is, among other things, a sign of unity - - i.e., all communicants believe the same things, perhaps most particularly as to the Real Presence, but it is still a sign of unity, no? Another poster pointed out that you can find research that indicates that less than 50% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence- - does that mean the the “we are church” folks get to define away the Real Presence? If not, why not? “They are church”, right? Can one go so far in making individual judgments contrary to the teaching of the Church that to call oneself in communion with that church is meaningless? What is that point, or do you not think that is possible? Do you think the Church even has any teaching authority?

I am not trying to be a wise guy - - I would really like to hear what someone who asserts primacy of conscience on this matter thinks vis-a-vis being big-C Catholic. I think perhaps you have considered this, and I’d be interested to hear your point of view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top