Why Contraception Is Wrong (Quick Question follow-up question)

[Supercomputer]

Greetings everyone,

I would like to have a more convincing answer to this question. Here is the link:

Why Contraception Is Wrong | Catholic Answers Q&A

My understanding is that having children is not an obligation if a married couple determine that they are not capable of giving a child an acceptable upbringing at the present time. I think that most fertile couples are capable of giving a child an acceptable upbringing. I do not want any couple to postpone children unless they have a very strong reason to determine that they are not. Furthermore, I think they must do their best to conquer whatever obstacle is in their way as soon as possible.

Assuming however that they do have a good enough reason to postpone, why must procreation remain an end for which sex exists in their case? The answer to the Quick Question seems to indicate and rely on the idea that it does.

Thanks

 

[Edward_H]

What’s an “acceptable upbringing”

Those are weasel words.

The principal point of Catholic teaching is that having children helps a couple become more for God!!

The sacrificing, the planning, the diaper changing, the working together…actually builds a couple’s virtues and unity.

Too many couples run behind “acceptable upbringing”…when they really are saying “so we can live as we are now without substantial sacrifice”.

Unitive serves the procreative, which serves the unitive.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Contraception is wrong because it disorders the marital act, each marital act must be ordered toward procreation.

 

[MichaelP3]

If a couple is postponing having children, they should not use contraception. They should abstain from all sexual activity.

And here I thought NFP was an option?

Although I have my concerns with NFP it at least attemps answer this question in the real world. Your answer there is just a fantasy in some other world.

 

[MichaelP3]

You said abstain from all sexual activity? If you would like to rephrase that part you can do that.

Unless you meant it as some sort of joke?

Little bit of self control from what? Unmarried… okay I agree. But being even Catholic validly and sacramentaly married and sharing a bed with your wife/husband but noooooooooo… leave that until we are ready for the 2nd or 3rd one.

In other words unrealistic and fantasy. NFP attempts to solve this as I stated. But maybe you meant that but just didn’t mention it. Then well okay… to the degree of NFP but that’s not the point here.

 

[MichaelP3]

Fair enough. You are speaking Catholic there. Although I still have my reservations/everything else I should not say, that would take a dissertation here, I do get your point.

 

[MichaelP3]

Honestly your post just bugged me saying such things as an unmarried woman. Together with the unmarried males who agree with this and made these rules.

It does border on fantasy to make such statements with no clue of the real world.

But that’s the Catholic position and I knew that. So it’s on me.

 

[Vonsalza]

I wasn’t thinking of NFP when I made my response, so I did forget to mention it. NFP is okay, but those who use it must still remember that they can still conceive. Although it’s unlikely, it’s still possible.

According to grade-school biology class, if couples abstain from sex when an egg is present (via ovulation) and also begin abstaining from sex a week from the female’s expected ovulation date (so all sperm possibly present are dead by the time ovulation occurs), it is a biological impossibility for a woman to get pregnant.

“It’s possible to get pregnant at any time” is only true if her cycle is wildly irregular.

As pope John Paul II was maybe a little leery of, NFP isn’t particularly “open to life” when the object of the “game” is to only have sex when procreation should be biologically impossible.

To the question posed by the thread, the reason contraception is wrong is because pope Paul VI forbade it in Humanae Vitae despite 64 of 69 members of his Pontifical Commission on Birth Control voting in favor of allowing couples to use BC. It was seen as a simple extension of the cycle method (NFP) already in place to frustrate pregnancy.

 

[MichaelP3]

It doesn’t take a married person to understand Catholic teaching.

I have no doubt you understand the Catholic teaching on this. Contrary to belief it is not that difficult. It doesn’t even take a Catholic to understand it which is something I really wish more Catholics on here would grasp.

Although I recognize that I don’t understand what it’s like to be a married woman in a situation where I have to abstain or use NFP, and I don’t understand the feelings/emotions/difficulties that come along with it, I don’t think that changes Catholic teaching or the basis that helped form these teachings.

No it doesn’t if one believes that is the case. It very much rather seems like none of the above was considered.

Actually, it might be the case that an unmarried woman or a married woman who has never been in that situation would be able to best judge the situation objectively, since we do not bear the emotions that comes with it. Emotions sometimes affect the way we think and judge things.

True but in fact this isn’t judged or decided by women at all.

Of course, I’m not sure on that. That’s just how I’m thinking right now. I respect your opinion on the matter.

Thank you. I married a very Catholic woman. I have first hand experience with it all

Regards

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll do some more research on NFP.

I hope that’s not on my account.

Better ways to spend a perfectly serviceable Saturday evening than that.

 

[MichaelP3]

As pope John Paul II was maybe a little leery of, NFP isn’t particularly “open to life” when the object of the “game” is to only have sex when procreation should be biologically impossible.

This actually made me think of the “Ends do not justify the means” argument. I mean. NFP can have a purpose of not having a baby. That is the same ends as a condom. But now the means are all of a sudden different because of a change in language like “ordered to procreation” (To the others, I have seen the argument, I just don’t buy it). Views people like Cardinal Walter Kasper seems to grasp.

To the question posed by the thread, the reason contraception is wrong is because pope Paul VI forbade it in Humanae Vitae despite 64 of 69 members of his Pontifical Commission on Birth Control voting in favor of allowing couples to use BC. It was seen as a simple extension of the cycle method (NFP) already in place to frustrate pregnancy.

Also, the statement in the minority report that the Catholic Chuch cannot accept this as it would mean the Holy Spirit guided the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference first in accepting it. I am really wondering where the word “pride” should fall seeing that it is thrown around so much here.

 

[on_the_hill]

To the question posed by the thread, the reason contraception is wrong is because pope Paul VI forbade it in Humanae Vitae despite 64 of 69 members of his Pontifical Commission on Birth Control voting in favor of allowing couples to use BC. It was seen as a simple extension of the cycle method (NFP) already in place to frustrate pregnancy.

That’s how I see it. At this point, all methods of birth control have a “failure” rate. The likelihood of getting pregnant with NFP is probably pretty high (I saw one stat at 24%). In a way, it’s the Church saying, “we approve of NFP” when they know it’s not a realistic means of birth control. The old bait-n-switch.

One day, science will invent a 100% effective birth control method, which is probably why the Church won’t allow artificial means. They don’t want people to think it’s o.k. to use 100% effective birth control.

What is ironic is how people will praise NFP for its effectiveness vs. artificial means.

 

[Vonsalza]

If Petrine primacy is to unite the Church, it appears Petrine pride is very effective at doing the opposite.

Christian history certainly seems to suggest it.

---

Cheers, I’m off for the evening

(That direct address felt weird so i recalled it)

 

[MichaelP3]

You stated it so well.

 

[on_the_hill]

This actually made me think of the “Ends do not justify the means” argument. I mean. NFP can have a purpose of not having a baby. That is the same ends as a condom. But now the means are all of a sudden different because

because NFP is less likely to work as birth control, and the Church does not want us to practice birth control, which is why it allows the one that doesn’t work.

 

[MichaelP3]

What is ironic is how people will praise NFP for its effectiveness vs. artificial means.

A very Catholic family member on my wife’s side got married 3 years ago. They were utterly certain they will have kids in 4 years because of their financial situation. And I mean this as an actual situation that even Catholics would agree is a reason. They did the full Crichton method class and bought a real Ladycomp. Yes, 3 months after the marriage they were expecting. And when I say they had a bad situation, today I am contributing.

It makes one think…

 

[QwertyGirl]

I think that most fertile couples are capable of giving a child an acceptable upbringing. I do not want any couple to postpone children unless they have a very strong reason to determine that they are not. Furthermore, I think they must do their best to conquer whatever obstacle is in their way as soon as possible.

In all charity, I think you need to mind your own business. These are intensely personal decisions between a husband and wife.

 

[QwertyGirl]

It’s like bulimia, eating food because it tastes good but purging it back up so as to not consume calories. It is disordered and a way to intentionally try to get rid of an end (nourishment) of the means (eating food). In the same way, contraception is disordered.

I realize this is a pretty standard analogy here, but please know sex is nothing at all even similar to bulimia. It is a really bad way to make the point you are trying to make. It oversimplifies what sex is about on many levels, and grossly diminishes the significance and the impact of an eating disorder for the person who sufferes with it.

 

[Benadam]

That’s how I see it. At this point, all methods of birth control have a “failure” rate. The likelihood of getting pregnant with NFP is probably pretty high (I saw one stat at 24%). In a way, it’s the Church saying, “we approve of NFP” when they know it’s not a realistic means of birth control. The old bait-n-switch.

It’s really not about percentages of effectiveness. It’s whether or not the environment that human life is conceived is natural or unnatural;.

 

[QwertyGirl]

but to show how both are disordered in nearly the same way

That is what I was saying…there is nothing similar about the eating disorder and the disorder you believe exists with contracepted sexual activity. I realize this analogy is used often here, but it’s not a good one. Bulimics vomit up their food, not because it is pleasurable, but because they believe it is a necessity. It is a very painful thing to go through, and the person enduring It suffers greatly. Contracepted sex is participated in because it is completely pleasurable. These are two very different situations which share absolutely nothing in common with each other.

You may as well be saying that contracepted sex is disordered in the same way robbing a bank is. No correlation whatsoever.