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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Supercomputer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That exact point is what I was adressing in part of my post. Here; I will repost it if you missed it!

“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.”
 
I understand the argument you are making but you may as well be saying that contracepted sex is disordered in the same way robbing a bank is. No correlation whatsoever.

Every time I hear that analogy I think it is disrespectful to people who suffer with eating disorders. Maybe that’s why I feel strongly that it’s such a bad analogy. No offense taken though, and I didn’t believe you were trying to offend. I just wanted to give you another perspective.
 
Is it possible you heard this analogy or read about it while researching it. I saw it when I did my research a few years back.

Brittany, please please please also use your own mind when you descern all of your faith. I did a few 1000 hours of Catholic research and today I would have preferred to be fluent in French.
 
That was all in my post and answered. Please reread and you will come to a realisation what I was getting to.

If you want more clarification, you would need to be a lot more specific!

Regards
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
That exact point is what I was adressing in part of my post. Here; I will repost it if you missed it!

“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.”
Click to expand...
Michael,there are two ends that must be met. The true end of sexual activity is found in human nature. The other end is to plan a birth. It is natural to plan a birth if the means used is found in human nature. A woman’s reproductive cycle is found in human nature. It is natural for it to be known and used as a means to plan births. A material device isn’t found in human nature and so, it is not a means that is natural to humans. It’s a sin against nature so a sin against God.
 
Last edited:
Brittany said:
Contraception is immoral because it intentionally tries to get rid of the end of a means. Sex was meant for union of husband and wife and for procreation. To purposefully mess with either of these purposes is wrong.
Click to expand...
The only sentence with a question mark in my original post was asking why sex needs to be for procreation even in a situation like the one I outlined. Your answer simply restates my question as an answer.
Brittany said:
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.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you that bulimia is bad because it is destructive to the body. But what damage does contraception do?
 
Supercomputer said:
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
Click to expand...
If the true ends of sexual activity are separated the sex act is not found in human nature. A couple acting within the bounds of human nature can plan births. The act is not a sin against nature and God. God operates within the order He established in the beginning. Human nature is properly ordered by God.

Edit to add. If unity is removed as an end that is also a sin against human nature. The act reduces the man or the woman to an object of use.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Contraception is wrong because it disorders the marital act, each marital act must be ordered toward procreation.
Click to expand...
The only sentence with a question mark in my original post was asking why sex needs to be for procreation even in a situation like the one I outlined. Your answer simply restates my question as an answer.
 
Benadam said:
If the true ends of sexual activity are separated the sex act is not found in human nature. A couple acting within the bounds of human nature can plan births. The act is not a sin against nature and God. God operates within the order He established in the beginning. Human nature is properly ordered by God.
Click to expand...
Why does God demand that procreation remain an end for which sex exists in the case I outlined?
 
Last edited:
Supercomputer said:
Why does God demand that procreation remain an end for which sex exists in the case I outlined?
Click to expand...
Supercomputer said:
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?
Click to expand...
If the only purpose of sexual activity were to unite the couple, the act will have lost all purpose. Unity is a secondary purpose ordered towards procreation. This is the natural law.

Divine law.
There isn’t a good enough earthly reason to close the door on Divine Action because in God it’s possible there is a better reason for them to not postpone.
 
Benadam said:
It is natural to plan a birth if the means used is found in human nature.
Click to expand...
The “If” that doesn’t seem to square with the rest of it. To me, the qualification of “if” leads back to my position that NFP is likely to fail.
 
Not “for procreation”.

Ordered toward procreation. Done in the same way that it would be done for procreation.

No using of chemicals or physical barriers added. If we believed God created us, that means He created our sexual function for a reason.

Think of it is “Green Sex”, in fact, you might give it a listen. https://www.amazon.com/Green-Sex-Jason-Evert/dp/B00EE656BO
 
The vast majority of Catholics use ABC of one form or another. Exact numbers depend on who and how you ask, but it may be 8-9 out of ten. Are they really all committing grave, potentially mortal sins? If you think it through, it can’t be that bad. Of course, the ideal is what the church teaches, but it is about time we accept the facts: Humanae Vitae has been rejected by the people. It has been too demanding.
 
Last edited:
On what evidence do you base you claim?

In my circle, both online and in real life, I know very few practicing Catholics who “use ABC”.

I do know people who have had a time when they were pressured by their treating physician and other friends/family during a crisis and have agreed to sterilization. This is sad and points to how we need to refrain from the “well, everyone ELSE is doing it” sort of advice, and we need to seek out medical professionals who respect our religious beliefs before the crisis arises.

The idea that “if everyone else is doing it then it can’t be that bad”, how does that support our mandate to help our brothers and sisters get to heaven?

Yes, God is merciful and we may take the gravest sin to confession, but, we sin more to presume on God’s mercy.
 
It may be that things are different in your circle. I am talking about the grand scale of things. Let’s face it, the average Catholic does not feel obliged to obey church teachings when it comes to artificial birth control - that is, if they even are aware of the teachings. I don’t understand why people try to emphasize the importance of rules that have been pretty much entirely disregarded for the last half century.
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
If the only purpose of sexual activity were to unite the couple, the act will have lost all purpose. Unity is a secondary purpose ordered towards procreation. This is the natural law.
Click to expand...
Why does God demand that procreation remain an end for which unity exists in the case I outlined?
Benadam said:
Divine law.

There isn’t a good enough earthly reason to close the door on Divine Action because in God it’s possible there is a better reason for them to not postpone.
Click to expand...
Since it is always possible that God will provide a good reason not to postpone, should they ever postpone?
 
A reflection on the word Matrimony and the state of matrimony illuminates the purposes of the Marital bond.

The sacrament of Matrimony. Article seven Pt II Section 2. Ch. 3
1664 Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (GS 50 # 1).
Click to expand...
1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”[160]
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.[161]
Click to expand...
 
Brittany said:
NFP is okay, but those who use it must still remember that they can still conceive. Although it’s unlikely, it’s still possible.
Click to expand...
This turns marital relations into some kind of probabilistic game. As long as the odds aren’t zero, its OK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top