Why artificial birth contol is wrong

[Ron_Conte]

There are married women that have to take pills that cause contraception, but they do not do such in order to prevent pregnancy. They do it because they need to for their health. The Church has stated these women still may partake in the marital act with their husbands.

The Church has made no such statement.

Intrinsically evil acts are immoral regardless of whether these acts are chosen as a means or an end. So contraception and abortifacient contraception cannot be justified as a means to a good end, such as health.

The following quotes are from Veritatis Splendor:

human activity cannot be judged as morally good merely because it is a means for attaining one or another of its goals, or simply because the subject’s intention is good

a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is “not capable of being ordered” to God and “unworthy of the human person” are always and in every case in conflict with that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression.

The doctrine of the object as a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments, of charity and of the virtues. The moral quality of human acting is dependent on this fidelity to the commandments, as an expression of obedience and of love. For this reason — we repeat — the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.

 

[ThomasToo]

There are three fonts of morality. The intended end or purpose is a different font from the moral object. Intrinsically evil acts have an evil moral object, regardless of intention…

I have repeatedly quoted Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae, the CCC, the compendium, and the USCCB on this point: there are three fonts of morality, and the intention is a different font from the moral object. Therefore, a good intention does not imply a good moral object.

All these quotes are necessarily tied to the–frankly, unproven–assertion that it is the Church’s position that contraceptive acts (regardless of their moral object) are inherently evil. This is not the Church’s position.

 

[tijeras]

Given this statement:
Artificial birth control is not only wrong, it is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances.

Is using birth control still considered “wrong” if it is used for medical reasons, or only where sex is involved?

So, regardless of circumstances, if birth control could save a woman’s life it is still gravely immoral? That does not sit well with me at all

God judges the heart, not just the actions. That’s why He’s the only one who “gets” to judge: we can’t see the heart, only He can.

If you’re using the Pill for some condition but you’re not having sex, obviously you’re not using it contraceptively, so no, it wouldn’t be a problem. It’s not, in that case, “birth control”, it’s your acne treatment or period regulator or whatever.

i’d be interested to learn in what cases there is contraception that is not used contraceptively in such a way as to save a woman’s life. Please share about that.

Keep in mind also, that there are almost always alternatives to using contraceptives for other ailments, and that contraceptives do carry such high risks that one should think twice about using them if prescribed for some condition.

 

[tijeras]

As far “indirect” versus “direct” contraception:

Is depriving someone of life, whether or not you meant to do it, not still depriving someone of life?

Well, let’s be more serious here since chemical contraceptives often act as abortifacients as well: is killing not still killing, whether or not it was intended?

Additionally, if you KNOW there’s a chance that you’re killing (which you would if you were on a contraceptive and still having sex), i think you’d be rather culpable there.

There’s intent, certainly, but there’s also negligence, there’s also shutting one’s eyes to reality and acting in ways that are “convenient” to yourself but harmful to others.

It’s interesting to watch these forums and see how people start splitting hairs over what is allowed and what is not allowed, what is reasonable to expect of people what is not. Of course the Church has unreasonable expectations. we’re not looking for how much we can “get away with”. Jesus, through His Church, is trying to lead us toward holiness, and that is completely contrary to everything convenient to ourselves because it’s the very opposite of selfishness.

Would it not be the case that the holiest course of action if you were a woman facing the prescription of a contraceptive for some ailment would be to: 1) search thoroughly for some other treatment and also decide if your condition was really threatening or just annoying (a hemorrhage is threatening, acne is not) 2) and if there weren’t some other treatment, abstain from sex until after you’re either no longer fertile or you no longer need the prescription? Would this require sacrifice? Yes. On the part of both the husband and the wife? Yes. Aren’t heroic acts of selflessness (sacrifice) when called for necessary for the pursuit of holiness? I believe so. Look at the martyrs - they gave their lives for Jesus. Look at St. Gianna - she sacrificed her own life rather than kill her unborn child. I don’t think there’s a Patron Saint of all things Convenient. It’s a hard race we’re running here. You can opt out if you want to, and God will judge you, not us. But if the Church really loves us, and the Church is really Jesus’ bride, guided by His Holy Spirit, then she’s not going to be the type of parent who pats her kids on the back and says, “oh that’s okay”. She’s going to be the kind of mother who tries to form us and guide us toward what is truly best for us and life (soul) saving.

Yeah, it’s nuts, and ThomasToo, I wouldn’t expect you or anyone else outside the Church to accept it or believe it, although if it is what’s truly soul-saving, I hope someday you will.

 

[Ron_Conte]

All these quotes are necessarily tied to the–frankly, unproven–assertion that it is the Church’s position that contraceptive acts (regardless of their moral object) are inherently evil. This is not the Church’s position.

Familiaris Consortio calls contraception “intrinsically immoral” n. 32

Humanae Vitae calls contraception “intrinsically wrong” n. 14.

Casti Connubii calls contraception “intrinsically against nature” and “shameful and intrinsically vicious” n. 54.

The Vademecum for Confessors says “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception” n. 4.

The Compendium of the CCC calls contraception “intrinsically immoral” n. 498.

The main point of controversy in these several threads on this topic, is on how intention relates to intrinsic evil. The Church’s teaching in Veritatis Splendor (which is Latin for ‘the encyclical that everyone ignores’) is that intrinsically evil acts can never be justified by intention or circumstances. The Magisterium is very clear and definitive in teaching that there are three fonts of morality, and that intention and moral object are separate fonts. Three good fonts are needed for any act to be moral. So a good intention is necessary, but not sufficient.

Intrinsically evil acts are intentionally chosen. But in choosing an act with a particular moral object, one cannot intend a different moral object. The chosen act is intrinsically ordered toward its moral object. The intrinsically evil act is always deliberately chosen (so accidental homicide is not murder). But the moral object is inseparable from the act. If you deliberately chose the act, then you cannot claim to be free from sin because you intended a different end. The act has its own inherent end, the moral object.

 

[rwillenborg]

I think people who otherwise oppose the use of artificial hormones in their food is because these are a) untested and b) non-human hormones. Also, herbal remedies which are not tested by the FDA (as well as homeopathy in the general case) rely entirely on the placebo effect. The birth control pill, on the other hand, does not and actually works and most people aren’t willing to leave whether or not they get pregnant to chance or the placebo effect.

You realize that no method of birth control is 100% effective, right? It says that on the paperwork that comes with the pill, on the back of every box of condoms and on every birth control advertisement. Statistics vary on efficacy depending on method and usage. I’m happy to link you to the statistics if you’d like.

You’re trying to be funny, right? You think the issue with the hormones in food is that they’re non-human, versus what’s in the pill, which is…what, exactly? Um, How do you think pharm companies GET the hormones in the pill? Hint: it’s not from a human. It’s a modified cholesterol. It’s chemicals made to mimic human hormones.
Again, I ask, if someone is trying to live a healthy lifestyle, how is swallowing a pill of synthetically developed hormones, made to sterilize you, healthy? It simply isn’t.

And by the way, if you put human hormones into a non-human, you would have really, really big problems.

And, on the abc not working, uh…duh. Did you not read my whole post? I will repeat for your convenience. ABC failed. I expect it would have failed again. THAT’S how I got started on nfp, and THAT’S why I encourage my friends (including Todd, who has managed to beat EVERY form of birth control, including a vasectomy, I swear that man has sperm of steel or something…) to understand the Church’s incredibly radical view that sex makes babies. Why should I ingest these chemicals to sterilize myself when they don’t even WORK!!! It was SO DUMB! I was paying for that? I was paying money to sterilize myself, which was a dumb thing to do, and it didn’t even do THAT! So, now we use nfp (by the way, I’m not catholic, I just really think taking pills unnecessarily is a bad idea).

Taking abc lulls a person into a false sense of confidence. Sure, the literature says that it’s not 100% (it also says it’s an abortifacent, but everyone seems to gloss over that, too), but my point is, people need to realize that EVERY time you have sex you might have a baby. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who are SHOCKED, positively SHOCKED when they find out they’re pregnant after being on the pill or using a condom.
I was shocked, but in all fairness, it WAS twins, and I certainly did not see THAT one coming.

 

[rwillenborg]

Bleeding disorders or hormone imbalances immediately came to mind. I was mostly thinking of my own experience (which, for sake of handing out too much information I won’t go into) in which a type of birth control - I forget what its called - was used.

Would you mind telling me the name of the bleeding disorder? I’m just curious because the pill causes blood clots, so I’m not sure which bleeding disorder it might cure.
ABC is very helpful with endometriosis for example, and that can cause some bleeding, is that maybe what you’re thinking of? That’s not a bleeding disorder, though, so I’m not sure what you might be thinking of.
ABC CAN and is used for theraputic purposes. It was used on my endometriosis for example, and it was incredibly helpful in alleviating the painful symptoms.
But, again, I’m just unaware of which DEADLY disorders abc cures and if you could provide me with the names of those I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

 

[Rence]

Would you mind telling me the name of the bleeding disorder? I’m just curious because the pill causes blood clots, so I’m not sure which bleeding disorder it might cure.
ABC is very helpful with endometriosis for example, and that can cause some bleeding, is that maybe what you’re thinking of? That’s not a bleeding disorder, though, so I’m not sure what you might be thinking of.
ABC CAN and is used for theraputic purposes. It was used on my endometriosis for example, and it was incredibly helpful in alleviating the painful symptoms.
But, again, I’m just unaware of which DEADLY disorders abc cures and if you could provide me with the names of those I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Some women have such heavy menstrual flows that they need blood transfusions. I don’t think there is a name for this disorder, it’s just something that happens. The pill can treat these bleed-outs, and debilitating cramps that pretty much incapacitate some women.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Familiaris Consortio calls contraception “intrinsically immoral” n. 32

Humanae Vitae calls contraception “intrinsically wrong” n. 14.

Casti Connubii calls contraception “intrinsically against nature” and “shameful and intrinsically vicious” n. 54.

The Vademecum for Confessors says “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception” n. 4.

The Compendium of the CCC calls contraception “intrinsically immoral” n. 498.

The main point of controversy in these several threads on this topic, is on how intention relates to intrinsic evil. The Church’s teaching in Veritatis Splendor (which is Latin for ‘the encyclical that everyone ignores’) is that intrinsically evil acts can never be justified by intention or circumstances. The Magisterium is very clear and definitive in teaching that there are three fonts of morality, and that intention and moral object are separate fonts. Three good fonts are needed for any act to be moral. So a good intention is necessary, but not sufficient.

Intrinsically evil acts are intentionally chosen. But in choosing an act with a particular moral object, one cannot intend a different moral object. The chosen act is intrinsically ordered toward its moral object. The intrinsically evil act is always deliberately chosen (so accidental homicide is not murder). But the moral object is inseparable from the act. If you deliberately chose the act, then you cannot claim to be free from sin because you intended a different end. The act has its own inherent end, the moral object.

The use of progesterone pills is not necessarily contraception, Ron. There is no reason for me, continent, single man to use a condom. I’ve never put one on - I never will.

However, as you yourself admit, lots of women use progesterone pills without intending to use them as contraceptives. One of the side effects of the use of progesterone pills is temporary sterilization (and sometimes permanent, sadly). Hence, if the progesterone pills are being used for a reason serious enough to merit self-sterilization, then it’s morally licit to be temporarily sterile.

Why would a person who is temporarily sterile as a side effect of legitimate medication be forbidden from relations with their spouse? Chemotherapy can sometimes cause temporary sterility - surely it is not illicit for someone on chemotherapy to engage in relations.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I’ve been celibate so long i kinda forget how Church teachings on sexuality… um… work or whatever… I’v never believed in birth control but… just wondering what to tell people who say there is nothing wrong with it… whether catholic or o/wise.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

i went to this site and got the following:

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by **Onan **to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and He slew him…(Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found… explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore,*** if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20). ***

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. ***Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. ***Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. **Martin Luther **said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

wow… never thought Luther would say such things…

but anyhow… just wondering what to tell non-catholics (or catholics) who don’t believe artif brth conrol is wrong…

I explained it to three of my siblings, (14, 16, and 19) today, all non-Catholics, raised by parents who used birth control and thought it morally licit (even though they had nine, lol).

The analogy was dumb, but here it is:

See that trashcan over there (it was a nice metal one - we were in my parents’ kitchen). Let us suppose that if someone plays a drum solo on it, five minutes later, it will turn into a human being. If I just let the trashcan alone, a human being will exist. If I destroy the trashcan, that human being that would have come into existence would never exist.

The natural reaction to this? “But, that’s just like murder!”

Yes, it is. Birth control is murder by the prevention of existence.

What if I went back in time to your parents’ wedding chamber and I destroyed that egg that would be you? My intent would be to murder you - but I only destroyed what became you, not you. However, the end result was the same - your non-existence.

Birth control is intended to prevent human beings from coming into existence. For that reason, it is gravely wrong.

 

[bosonhiggs]

Some women have such heavy menstrual flows that they need blood transfusions. I don’t think there is a name for this disorder, it’s just something that happens. The pill can treat these bleed-outs, and debilitating cramps that pretty much incapacitate some women.

Yes, this is what happened to me - though it was caused by an autoimmune disorder (ITP) which attacks the blood clotting mechanisms, in most women there is no real reason for it to be happening. It’s fairly common, I believe its called Menorrhagia. In my case, the hospital used birth control pills (I forget the specific brand) to slow down and stop the bleeding. Currently I am on BC in order to control any bleeding (birth control often creates lighter periods for many women, hence the reason it is useful in my case). I do not want to bleed to death

Birth control doesn’t “cure” anything. It is simply a medication that can be used to help control adverse effects created by a variety of illnesses, usually severe cramping (sometimes caused by Endometriosis), PCOS, or other hormonal imbalances. Sometimes a short time on BC will help “reset” an individual’s hormones, in a way “curing” them.

Sure, it has side effects (increased risk for blood-clotting, heart attack and stroke, weight gain), but so does every other medication that is being prescribed. Individuals who take the pill are warned of the side effects and how best to avoid them. This is also the reason you need to see a doctor in order to get a prescription. The doctor takes your family history )as you know) and will give you the best options and brands based on that.

For people wondering the effects of the pill, I am looking at the information in my pack of birth control right now.

It states the most common side effects (nausea, weight gain, breast tenderness) and that they usually subside after 3 months (the recommended time period when determining if a certain brand is correct for you). The rare side effects “occur very infrequently if you are in good health” and normally if one of 3 conditions are present - previous history of blood clots, especially in smokers; Liver tumors; history of high blood pressure (it states that if blood pressure increases while on the pill it WILL return to normal once off of it).

These risks are : Blood Clots (risk increases with history of blood clots, smoking, or recently delivering a baby) ; Heart attack or stroke (increased by smoking); Gallbladder disease (risk is thought to be correlated to estrogen levels); Liver tumors (*extremely *rare). The people at the highest risk are smokers over the age of 40.

It then states the warning signs which require an immediate call to the doctor. (aka things which are symptoms of the above). There is a paragraph on the incidence of cancer (not shown to increase chance).

Health benefits of the pill include:
regulation of menstrual cycles
lower occurrence of iron deficiency anemia due to lighter periods
pain and other symptoms (bloating, fatigue, mood changes) are less likely to occur
ectopic pregnancy occurs less frequently
non-cancerous lumps or cysts in the breast may occur less frequently
acute pelvic inflammatory disease may occur less frequently
use provides some protection against developing two forms of cancer (cancer of the ovaries and cancer of the lining of the uterus)

Unfortunately I do not have any other medications to compare “risks” too, but I am positive they will list side effects similar to those of the pill.

I will also state that the pill does not cause abortions, miscarriages, or birth defects. Hormonal birth control pills simply *prevent *pregnancy - once does not take them to terminate a pregnancy. The pill stops ovulation and prevents fertilization and implantation. If an egg is fertilized and implants, birth control (and Plan B) will not abort it. There is no evidence that shows users who get pregnant while on the pill are at an increased risk of miscarriage, and there is no correlation between hormone BC usage and birth defects.

 

[seanflynn]

What if I went back in time to your parents’ wedding chamber and I destroyed that egg that would be you? My intent would be to murder you - but I only destroyed what became you, not you. However, the end result was the same - your non-existence.

Birth control is intended to prevent human beings from coming into existence. For that reason, it is gravely wrong.

I don’t believe that is correct. Your parents choosing not to marry each other would have the same end result - you non-existence. That would not have been a sin. Same for NFP, in that logic. I think Catholic morality is in the realm of means, not just ends and intentions. If we could argue that someone intended a good end, then all sins could be justified, theoretically. Like: “I contracepted because pregnancy is so hard on my wife.” Good intention, bad means. Or: “I’m in Germany, it’s 1923, and I just killed some guy named Hitler for looking at me funny.” Presumably good end, bad means.

Contraception is wrong for the reasons laid out so very well by distracted’s original post and others on this thread. Basically, it’s a sin against God’s sovereignty over life and death - against the first commandment. Also, aspects of adultery/covetousness, even within marriage. But in cases of truly contracepted acts, there is no murder.

 

[Ron_Conte]

However, as you yourself admit, lots of women use progesterone pills without intending to use them as contraceptives. One of the side effects of the use of progesterone pills is temporary sterilization (and sometimes permanent, sadly). Hence, if the progesterone pills are being used for a reason serious enough to merit self-sterilization, then it’s morally licit to be temporarily sterile.

Why would a person who is temporarily sterile as a side effect of legitimate medication be forbidden from relations with their spouse? Chemotherapy can sometimes cause temporary sterility - surely it is not illicit for someone on chemotherapy to engage in relations.

There are three fonts of morality. Intention is the first font. Moral object is the second font. An act is intrinsically evil if it has an evil moral object, regardless of intention. So the intention to use a contraceptive, while sexually active, for a medical purpose (or a legitimate intention, or a serious reason) does not determine the moral object.

Morality is determined by the three fonts. ‘Side effects’ is not one of the three fonts.
The reason or intention or purpose is the first font. Moral object is a separate font.

One cannot determine the morality of an act solely by the intention and the circumstances.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think Catholic morality is in the realm of means, not just ends and intentions. If we could argue that someone intended a good end, then all sins could be justified, theoretically.

Yes, every intrinsically evil act would seem to be justified if intention could determine whether or not an act is intrinsically evil. In fact, the number of fonts of morality would be reduced to two from three if intention determined the moral object. There would then be no need for the font of moral object, if a good intention necessarily made an act not intrinsically evil.

Examples:
Does lying for a good intention cause the act to be not a lie?
Is abortion necessarily indirect if it is done for a good intention?
Does theft cease to be intrinsically evil if it is done for a good intention?
Is contraception still immoral if it is done for a good intention?

The answer to all these questions is ‘No’.

But this is more clearly explained and understood in terms of the three fonts. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral. The intended end must be good, but that is not sufficient. A good intended end cannot justify an act that is intrinsically evil (evil moral object). Also, the good consequences must outweigh the bad.

The use of abortifacient contraception, while sexually active, especially over a long period of time, results in successive deaths of innocent prenatals. The deliberate choice to use abortifacient contraception AND remain sexually active is intrinsically evil, regardless of intention, because it is the deliberate choice of an act that is inherently ordered toward contraception and abortion. But, in addition, the good consequence of being able to remain sexually active is far outweighed by the bad consequnces of the deaths of innocent prenatals. Mere intention cannot justify an evil moral object, or bad consequences which gravely outweigh the good consequences.

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read this encyclical by Pope Paul VI:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[WetCatechumen]

There are three fonts of morality. Intention is the first font. Moral object is the second font. An act is intrinsically evil if it has an evil moral object, regardless of intention. So the intention to use a contraceptive, while sexually active, for a medical purpose (or a legitimate intention, or a serious reason) does not determine the moral object.

Morality is determined by the three fonts. ‘Side effects’ is not one of the three fonts.
The reason or intention or purpose is the first font. Moral object is a separate font.

One cannot determine the morality of an act solely by the intention and the circumstances.

By this logic, Ron, it is wrong to get a hysterectomy if you have uterine cancer and then continue to have sexual relations because as a side effect, you have been made sterile.

Murdering someone is an intrinsically evil act; killing someone is not. Contraceptives are merely methods to achieve the end of contraception. Contraception is evil; contraceptives are as evil as guns.

 

[distracted]

Distracted, I understand what you are saying. I am not at all advocating birth control, I am saying that if for medicinal purposes a woman must take a pill that has the unfortunate effect of also being a contraceptive, that is not direct contraception. For example, if a married woman has a major problem with bleeding “down there”, and the only effective way to treat it is a pill that also can be used as a contraceptive, she can take the pill and still partake in the marital act with her husband. She is not attempting direct contraception. It is an unfortunate side effect of the treatment that there is contraception, but this is not intended.

that makes no sense… If a woman takes bc for medical reasons and not for contraception… the whole reason the Church is against abc is because (one reason, i should say… the MAIN reason) is that it causes early abortions…

***she can take the pill 4 med reasons but she cannot have sex w/ her husband when to do so would mean the death of her child… ***

 

[WetCatechumen]

I don’t believe that is correct. Your parents choosing not to marry each other would have the same end result - you non-existence. That would not have been a sin. Same for NFP, in that logic. I think Catholic morality is in the realm of means, not just ends and intentions. If we could argue that someone intended a good end, then all sins could be justified, theoretically. Like: “I contracepted because pregnancy is so hard on my wife.” Good intention, bad means. Or: “I’m in Germany, it’s 1923, and I just killed some guy named Hitler for looking at me funny.” Presumably good end, bad means.

Contraception is wrong for the reasons laid out so very well by distracted’s original post and others on this thread. Basically, it’s a sin against God’s sovereignty over life and death - against the first commandment. Also, aspects of adultery/covetousness, even within marriage. But in cases of truly contracepted acts, there is no murder.

When parents choose not to marry each other, or not to have sexual relations as with NFP, they’re not starting the process that God made by which human beings come into existence. In the trash can analogy, if I walk by the trashcan without doing anything - well, I’m not required to go out of my way to make as many trashcans into humans as possible.

When they’ve already started the process that God made, and without their deliberate interference, a human being would come into existence - that’s when it starts to become wrong. It is for what you say - it’s a sin against God’s sovereignty over life and death, I’m just using the analogy to explain.

It’s not the intent not to avoid the conception of a child that is evil (well, it’s evil if you plan to use NFP for your entire marriage, as I understand it); it is the interference in the natural process, once started, that will make a human being exist.

I don’t think you understood my analogy.

 

[WetCatechumen]

that makes no sense… If a woman takes bc for medical reasons and not for contraception… the whole reason the Church is against abc is because (one reason, i should say… the MAIN reason) is that it causes early abortions…

***she can take the pill 4 med reasons but she cannot have sex w/ her husband when to do so would mean the death of her child… ***

That is not true. The main reason that the Catholic Church believes the use of contraception to be gravely contrary to the moral law is because it is gravely contrary to the moral law. One of the reasons it considers the use of estrogen pills as contraception immoral is that it can be abortifacient.

She also considers hysterectomies and ovarectomies gravely contrary to the moral law if used for contraception.

 

[distracted]

I explained it to three of my siblings, (14, 16, and 19) today, all non-Catholics, raised by parents who used birth control and thought it morally licit (even though they had nine, lol).

The analogy was dumb, but here it is:

See that trashcan over there (it was a nice metal one - we were in my parents’ kitchen). Let us suppose that if someone plays a drum solo on it, five minutes later, it will turn into a human being. If I just let the trashcan alone, a human being will exist. If I destroy the trashcan, that human being that would have come into existence would never exist.

The natural reaction to this? “But, that’s just like murder!”

Yes, it is. Birth control is murder by the prevention of existence.

What if I went back in time to your parents’ wedding chamber and I destroyed that egg that would be you? My intent would be to murder you - but I only destroyed what became you, not you. However, the end result was the same - your non-existence.

Birth control is intended to prevent human beings from coming into existence. For that reason, it is gravely wrong.

its wrong but its not the same as murder…

there is nothing wrong w/ preventing life naturally…

in fact the way the world is… i woudn’t want to bring children into it…