Why are condoms wrong?

[Abu]

Self-styled Truthlover
explain how “the physical love of a loving married couple is evil?”

The Magisterium has done this with clarity as Pope Pius XI defined infallibly in Casti Connubii, 1930, and Fr Torraco so concisely and correctly gave us (post #336):
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. **Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. **

“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Note:
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

Some may be unaware that this definitive doctrine against contraception by Pius XI proclaimed once again what Christ’s Church has always taught, because of the detestable decision of the Anglicans at their Lambeth Conference in 1930 to choose to say that contraception was alright. Precisely the grave error which the dissenter, self-styled Truthlover, has fallen into.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.

 

[Logical]

It’s not “birth” control; (abortion is “birth” control) condom usage is more properly termed “conception” control.

Both are wrong in the minds of the Church, but my personal opinion is that preventing conception is a lesser evil than aborting the unborn baby (even with a degree in English, I simply cannot wrap my head around calling an unborn child a “fetus”… that term is just so damned dehumanizing).

Why is it dehumanizing?
It’s the same as the term Child or Teenager.
Just a different stage in life.

PRO-ABORTION!

 

[Truthlover]

Why is it dehumanizing?
It’s the same as the term Child or Teenager.
Just a different stage in life.

PRO-ABORTION!

As you are in favour of abortion, the logical conclusion from the above quote is that you believe parents should be able to eliminate their child or teenager if they so desire. One problem with abortion is it lowers the value of all life.

 

[Logical]

As you are in favour of abortion, the logical conclusion from the above quote is that you believe parents should be able to eliminate their child or teenager if they so desire. One problem with abortion is it lowers the value of all life.

As I thought, someone would take it to the extreme. Congrats. You know for a fact I didn’t mean that but you want to be high and mighty and try to put MY beliefs down with extremist statements.

I feel like it shouldn’t our choice to stop someone from doing it. It’s not our life. I feel that it should be someones choice. Who are we to dictate that? If it’s YOUR belief that YOU think it’s wrong or sin then YOU don’t do it.
Don’t push church rules or whatever you want to call it (no offense, have ignorance for the right name)

 

[Truthlover]

Don’t push church rules or whatever you want to call it (no offense, have ignorance for the right name)

Let’s ignore church rules. You stated regarding the term “fetus”:

“It’s the same as the term Child or Teenager.
Just a different stage in life.”

So if the fetus is just a “different stage in life” and you feel that particular stage in life can be eliminated at will then why not the other stages? This is the logic of your argument! Abortion is a huge problem as it devalues all human life encouraging euthanasia now and who knows what else in future. The lid has been removed from Pandora’s box and unless we replace it we are all in trouble; no life is safe.

 

[casey_zia]

As I thought, someone would take it to the extreme. Congrats. You know for a fact I didn’t mean that but you want to be high and mighty and try to put MY beliefs down with extremist statements.

I feel like it shouldn’t our choice to stop someone from doing it. It’s not our life. I feel that it should be someones choice. Who are we to dictate that? If it’s YOUR belief that YOU think it’s wrong or sin then YOU don’t do it.
Don’t push church rules or whatever you want to call it (no offense, have ignorance for the right name)

This thread has been most “entertaining” over these weeks, Abu and others using logic and Church teaching to refute the sophistic discourses of Truthlover. Now we have Logical, who first states that “fetus” is simply a stage of life, like “child” or “teenager”, but has no trouble with people exterminating that stage of life. Nobody’s pushing rules on you, my friend. You have chosen to enter into a discussion on this Catholic Forum, and Catholic teaching happens to embrace even fetal life as precious; “I feel” (subjective opinion) does not hold much muster in this argument about protecting human beings (fetal or not) from murder.

 

[Truthlover]

Why do you leave out the rest of #1790?

Because it does not alter the fact that, as the first line says, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

If you do not believe me read Cardinal Ratzinger:

“It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.”

The quote can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

 

[Logical]

This thread has been most “entertaining” over these weeks, Abu and others using logic and Church teaching to refute the sophistic discourses of Truthlover. Now we have Logical, who first states that “fetus” is simply a stage of life, like “child” or “teenager”, but has no trouble with people exterminating that stage of life. Nobody’s pushing rules on you, my friend. You have chosen to enter into a discussion on this Catholic Forum, and Catholic teaching happens to embrace even fetal life as precious; “I feel” (subjective opinion) does not hold much muster in this argument about protecting human beings (fetal or not) from murder.

Typical

 

[Truthlover]

1. This is a gem of deceit – slandering the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), who answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network.

Abu,

Your points are erroneous:

1. It is a lovely title but forgive me if I follow the CCC and Cardinal Ratzinger instead. CCC#1790 states: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

Ratzinger wrote:

““It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.”

The quote can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

1. See 1) above.

 

[Truthlover]

Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

Abu,

You pointed out that Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae #14 reduced the severity to “is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong” from the standard of Pope Pius XI “shameful and intrinsically vicious”.

As HV is the most recent encyclical it is current church teaching. Again, as you pointed out, doing something “wrong” is not the sane as doing something “evil”. That is why Paul VI dropped the term “mortal sin” out of his encyclical according to Cardinal Konig.

Are you going to respond to my argument or sling insults as usual? Do not be too self-righteous. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

“Not without reason does the self-righteous man in the encounter with Jesus appear as the one who is really lost. If the tax collector with all his undisputed sins stands more justified before God than the Pharisee with all his undeniably good works (Lk 18:9-14), this is not because the sins of the tax collector were not sins or the good deeds of the Pharisee not good deeds. Nor does it mean that the good that man does is not good before God, or the evil not evil or at least not particularly important. The reason for this paradoxical judgment of God is shown precisely from our question. The Pharisee no longer knows that he too has guilt. He has a completely clear conscience. But this silence of conscience makes him impenetrable to God and men, while the cry of conscience which plagues the tax collector makes him capable of truth and love. Jesus can move sinners. Not hiding behind the screen of their erroneous consciences, they have not become unreachable for the change which God expects of them, and of us. He is ineffective with the “righteous,” because they are not aware of any need for forgiveness and conversion. Their consciences no longer accuse them but justify them.”

See: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

 

[davidv]

Because it does not alter the fact that, as the first line says, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

Begging the question. How does the second sentence in 1790 not put limits on the first one?

If you do not believe me read Cardinal Ratzinger:

Why do you claim I haven’t?

“It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.”

The quote can be found at:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

Selective quote mining degrades your position. I believe what you are calling conscience is what is referred to in this selection from the same article.

To put it differently, the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions and debases these with every passing day. Whoever equates conscience with superficial conviction, identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty which in fact has been woven from self- righteousness, conformity and lethargy. Conscience is degraded to a mechanism for rationalization while it should represent the transparency of the subject for the divine and thus constitute the very dignity and greatness of man. Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth.

 

[Abu]

Excellent post davidv, and the good Cardinal’s “Conscience’s reduction to subjective certitude betokens at the same time a retreat from truth” fits the deceit to a “T”, in harmony with John Paul the Great in *Veritatis Splendor *“#63:
“In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: “Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

“#64: The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

The deceit of self-styled Truthlover is endless. He even claims (post #346)

‘as you pointed out, doing something “wrong” is not the same as doing something “evil”.’

False. I did no such thing – we faithful know that wrong = evil, and the sophistry only makes his deceit more grotesque.
This dissenter claimed that Pope Paul VI made contraceptive intercourse evil by defining it as “intrinsically wrong”, thus:
His Post #169 on Humanae Vitae:

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. Evil is the lynchpin of this argument

We know the harm, in evidence here, which those blackguards did to Christ’s Church, truth, morals, conscience and Blessed Newman when they publicly dissented from the definitive doctrine in Humanae Vitae, not even realising that the same definitive condemnation had been made by Pius XI in 1930, but paying obeisance to the relativism of post modernism, led by the mirage of the “parallel magisterium” of Karl Rahner.

BTW:
Wrong = Contrary to conscience, morality or law, having the nature of vice
Evil = Morally bad or wrong

 

[Truthlover]

Begging the question. How does the second sentence in 1790 not put limits on the first one?.

Because it clearly does not! The CCC is pointing out that your conscience can be wrong, but does not try to refute the fact that “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

Why do you claim I haven’t?.

Because Ratzinger emphasized this point before the CCC was written, he was stating the moral tradition of the church.

Selective quote mining degrades your position…

Quotes of their nature are selective, however Ratzinger’s whole article emphasizes the primacy of conscience and nowhere does he suggest acting against a certain conscience. I agree that “identification of conscience with superficial consciousness” is not the correct way to form a conscience, but that does not alter Ratzinger’s point that “It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it."

Do you disagree with Ratzinger’s statement that ““It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it”?

 

[choose_to_love]

truth,

Side point: how come when you are citing someone who takes a position you agree with, they are “Cardinal So and so” or “Father X”, but when it is Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict, he is cited as Ratzinger?

I’m afraid I haven’t had time to read all the things I think I would need to in order to be able to continue to respond substantively to our last exchange, and now I’m a couple of pages behind on this thread. Not sure when I will have a chance to catch up. I also fear we are at the point, collectively, where an internet discussion board is not the ideal medium, due to the indepth nature of the source material (i.e., your recent assertion that “the whole article” makes a certain point - - it’s getting hard to summarize and as you have pointed out, all quoting is selective; I’m saying it is getting hard to refer to the material we all are referencing without really long quotes and consequently very long posts).

Nonetheless, a few posts back something you wrote struck me. I think you had quoted Newman again about how one must be able to stand before God and justify one’s decision to take a position contrary to the Church on a Church teaching, and you characterized that as a “studied” reason. Those strike me as two different things - - a studied reason seems far less substantial than one that requires one to stand before God Himself and justify one’s disobedience to His Church.

 

[Truthlover]

truth,

Side point: how come when you are citing someone who takes a position you agree with, they are “Cardinal So and so” or “Father X”, but when it is Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict, he is cited as Ratzinger?

Hi choose,

I agree with Ratzinger’s and Newman’s point and I often leave out Cardinal for both as they are well known; Suenan and Konig I think are not as well known

 

[Truthlover]

Those strike me as two different things - - a studied reason seems far less substantial than one that requires one to stand before God Himself and justify one’s disobedience to His Church.

Without refering back I assume I meant that among other things one must study their position “before God Himself and justify one’s disobedience to His Church”, as I am sure St Athanasius did when He was one of the few bishops opposing Arianism during Pope Liberius’s reign.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

This might not not be the right section for this.

I don’t understand why condoms are wrong for married couples. I can understand the pill, as it manipulates hormones and things, but why are condoms a problem? The only answer I’ve received from websites is this idea that condoms somehow get in the way of God creating life. This makes absolutely no sense to me. It’s a thin layer of latex, how could that possibly get in God’s way?

I don’t mean to offend anyone, and I DEFINITELY don’t mean to offend the Lord, but He’s GOD! He had Abraham’s wife get pregnant at quite an old age, he had Mary get pregnant with Jesus even though she never even had sex. If God wants a you to have a baby, YOU’RE HAVING A BABY! Again, I mean no offense, I’m just trying to demonstrate a point. God created all things from nothing, how can latex get in His way? Condoms even have a disclaimer that says they’re not 100% fail-safe. Even a hundredth of a percent would be miles to God. Or He could just disregard the condom altogether.

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

I read on another thread that a person said people can’t just be baby machines, pumping out kid after kid. Others responded, “why not”? Well, money, for one. It’s a little tough to have a big family if they all starve to death or freeze in the streets because you can’t make mortgage payments.

Honestly, what is morally wrong with having sex with your spouse just for the sake of having sex? Don’t say it’s the same as masturbation, it’s not. Masturbation is a selfish act, and depends solely on lust. Married couples have sex because they’re in love, and they want to demonstrate that love by pleasuring each other physically. I don’t see how this could be wrong, it makes no sense to me.

Is there anything that can be said? If there is an honestly good reason, I’d like to hear it. I really don’t mean to sound like a troll, and please believe me, I really don’t want to offend anyone.

Because preventing the primary purpose of the marital act from taking place is wrong. Yes God could make the condom completely useless, but God doesn’t stay the hand of abusive spouses, or silence the mouths of gossipers. We have free will, and we sin by misusing that free will.

 

[Abu]

By now AdamC and all readers who have seen the facts will know how and why contraception of any kind is wrong, evil and gravely sinful.

Facing Reality in the Truth
catholicinsight.com/online/church/humanae/article_121.shtml
Msgr. Vincent Foy:
“There is no gap between Church teaching and the demands of responsible parenthood. Nor is conscience a source of truth. As Cormac Burke has said, truth is independent of conscience, but conscience is not independent of truth. In moral matters, by the Will of God, the Church is the teacher of truth. A good conscience is informed and then conformed, or it is deformed with the frightful consequences inherent in objective evil. One of the greatest theologians of our time wrote, “It is nonsense for a Catholic to set up in opposition to the authority of the Encyclical the authority of his own personal conscience” (Cardinal C. Journet, The Light of the Encyclical, L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 10, 1968, p.10). It is nonsense, but still repeated, as we now observe.

Vatican II
“We find the true doctrine of responsible parenthood in Vatican II: 'The moral aspect of any procedure must be determined by objective standards. Sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law '(Gaudium et spes, n.51).

" ‘Married people should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience – and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church which is the authentic interpretation of divine law’ (Gaudium et spes, n.50).”
[My underlining].

 

[Truthlover]

" ‘Married people should realize that in their behaviour they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience – and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church which is the authentic interpretation of divine law’ (Gaudium et spes, n.50).”
[My underlining].

Abu,

Please note the following points:

1. The married couple “must be ruled by conscience”. Good to see that you finally accept this point!
2. G & S then shows how this conscience should be formed: “conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church.” This agrees with CCC #1785 which reads: “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.”

Our consciences are “guided by” the “authoritative teaching of the Church” and conformed to the law of God “in the light of” the “teaching authority of the Church”. No order that we “must” obey the teaching authority of the church. “Must” is mentioned in examining our conscience before the Lord’s cross. Why? G & S #16 explains this in 3) below.

1. “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.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.”

This is why the church says we must obey our conscience: “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.”

The church guides and assists and is a great help, but the church knows that each person has “in his heart a law written by God” and that person must obey that law.

 

[Truthlover]

“We find the true doctrine of responsible parenthood in Vatican II: 'The moral aspect of any procedure must be determined by objective standards. Sons of the Church may not undertake methods of regulating procreation which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law '(Gaudium et spes, n.51).

Abu,

I cannot find this quote in Gaudium et Spes #51. It seems to be an amalgam of #51 from:

“Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.”

If that is the case you could indicate this in future posts. It helps to know if we are discussing an authentic quote or snippets.

In any case this is one of the church teachings referred in my last post. When a teaching is non-infallible the church teaching of obeying your conscience has primacy, as both Ratzinger and the CCC agree.