Why contraception is wrong.

[TimothyH]

But he couldn’t bring himself to ratify the committee’s decision, even though Pope John XXIII had set it up, and he himself increased the panel from six to seventy two.

From Wikipedia -

[edit]

But he caved in to the Minority report signed by one four of the original submission, and the fact that there was a small number of dissenters on the original commission.

Why bother having a commission if you’re going to do that?

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The supreme pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ on Earth, has not only the right given to him by Christ, but the ability to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals. When you were baptized, you gave your “Amen” to this. That is what you were joining when you joined the Catholic Church. That is what you were agreeing to. Did no one tell you this?

He had the commission, he rejected their findings, he wrote the encyclical, and for Catholics, that is the end of the story. You can make all the arguments you want, but it is done, and we as Catholics have but two choices. The Holy Father has bound artificial contraception on earth as a sin, and so it is bound in Heaven. We either give our assent or stand in deliberate disobedience to the Holy Father who posesses the valid authority of Christ.

-Tim-

 

[Wardog]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The supreme pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ on Earth, has not only the right given to him by Christ, but the ability to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals. When you were baptized, you gave your “Amen” to this. That is what you were joining when you joined the Catholic Church. That is what you were agreeing to. Did no one tell you this?

He had the commission, he rejected their findings, he wrote the encyclical, and for Catholics, that is the end of the story. You can make all the arguments you want, but it is done, and we as Catholics have but two choices. The Holy Father has bound artificial contraception on earth as a sin, and so it is bound in Heaven. We either give our assent or stand in deliberate disobedience to the Holy Father who posesses the valid authority of Christ.

-Tim-

This is what Pope Paul had to say about dissent towards Humane Vitae: .
" Paul VI himself, in a letter to the Congress of German Catholics (Aug. 30, 1968), stated: “May the lively debate aroused by our encyclical lead to a better knowledge of God’s will.”

When he wrote Humanae Vitae, was Pope Paul speaking Ex Cathedra, making it an infallible doctrine?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

It was once societal common sense that marriage, sex and babies were an intertwined whole. Since the 1960’s, we’ve been pretending that they are three separate topics and making fools of ourselves ever since.

Well, largely because one can cherish the first two and detest the third, and many do. They don’t originate from the same places in the human heart at all. One might as well say that matriculating at a college and playing for the football team are intertwined.

 

[Dymphna82]

It’s not compulsory to have body issues due to none child-bearing. If you are that way inclined I would respectfully suggest you need to deal with that as a priority.

There are many women who do not have children, for any number of reasons, and not all out of choice. But they remain women, and children of God. it’s inappropriate to distain the body that God has given you.

Forgive my bluntness - but a little less self, and a bit more empathy, and you may realise that true men also suffer for their children - ask any man whose ex has used the children to spite him!

Okay, when you wait till you’re around 30 and you grow a tumor because you waited too long to have kids and have too much estrogen, then you can tell me what is what. Otherwise, no, men do not have to deal with all this.

When you bleed 20 days a month, and the only thing stopping you from having anemia and getting a heart attack is birth control, then you have a say in whether or not contraception is okay or not.

 

[mwok]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The supreme pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ on Earth, has not only the right given to him by Christ, but the ability to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals. When you were baptized, you gave your “Amen” to this. That is what you were joining when you joined the Catholic Church. That is what you were agreeing to. Did no one tell you this?

He had the commission, he rejected their findings, he wrote the encyclical, and for Catholics, that is the end of the story. You can make all the arguments you want, but it is done, and we as Catholics have but two choices. The Holy Father has bound artificial contraception on earth as a sin, and so it is bound in Heaven. We either give our assent or stand in deliberate disobedience to the Holy Father who posesses the valid authority of Christ.

-Tim-

AMEN!!!

 

[domandcarols]

The Catholic Church allows the use of the contraceptive pill for therapeutic reasons - for instance, if a woman has extremely painful periods - but not if the real reason is to render her less likely to conceive. So in other words, there is no problem whatsoever in an umarried girl taking the Pill. For a married woman, there is the very slight possibility of a conception, and that conception being lost because of the action of the Pill. It is not agreed among medical people how often this happens, if at all.

See the encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae’.

Thank you so much for your answer. I’ve always wondered about that. God bless!

 

[domandcarols]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The supreme pontiff, by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ on Earth, has not only the right given to him by Christ, but the ability to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals. When you were baptized, you gave your “Amen” to this. That is what you were joining when you joined the Catholic Church. That is what you were agreeing to. Did no one tell you this?

He had the commission, he rejected their findings, he wrote the encyclical, and for Catholics, that is the end of the story. You can make all the arguments you want, but it is done, and we as Catholics have but two choices. The Holy Father has bound artificial contraception on earth as a sin, and so it is bound in Heaven. We either give our assent or stand in deliberate disobedience to the Holy Father who posesses the valid authority of Christ.

-Tim-

Amen.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Amen.

The authority to bind and release **was given by Christ **to Peter hard on the heels of his admission of Christ as the Messiah. In the very next breath, Christ rebuked Peter as “Satan”. Peter had blundered, even though he was the very first Pope. One would have thought the records of Peter’s mistakes were there for a good reason.

The authority **did not come **from Vatican I, with it’s ruling on “Papal Infallibility” which is another bun fight I’ve got with Catholic doctrine.

In other words, Peter, and by extension, the Popes, can make mistakes.

That’s my argument.

And as far as I’m concerned, Paul VI made a mistake in banning the Contraceptive Pill. That it’s “binding” is not the issue - it’s whether it’s correct or not that is the issue.

 

[vsedriver]

The authority to bind and release **was given by Christ **to Peter hard on the heels of his admission of Christ as the Messiah. In the very next breath, Christ rebuked Peter as “Satan”. Peter had blundered, even though he was the very first Pope. One would have thought the records of Peter’s mistakes were there for a good reason.

Christ rebuked Peter not because he made a mistake but because he refused to accept that Christ would die. He was being disobedient and attempting to thwart God’s will.

The authority **did not come **from Vatican I, with it’s ruling on “Papal Infallibility” which is another bun fight I’ve got with Catholic doctrine.

the ruling on Papal Infallibity is based on the biblical fact that Christ did give the keys to Peter.

In other words, Peter, and by extension, the Popes, can make mistakes.

Peter was disobedient but he didn’t make a mistake on faith or morals. Peter wasn’t teaching. The Church can’t err in matters of faith and morals. The Pope listened to both sides of argument. The Holy Spirit guided his answer. He was amazingly prophetic.

And as far as I’m concerned, Paul VI made a mistake in banning the Contraceptive Pill. That it’s “binding” is not the issue - it’s whether it’s correct or not that is the issue.

And what good has come from the use of the contraceptive pill? It didn’t stop hunger, disease, or over population.

What it did do was separate the baby from the sex act. It made sex another bodily function like over eating instead of the holy act of creating new life in imitation of God. Now the baby is just a by-product of a bodily function. Eat too much, you get fat, the by-product of over eating. Just have the fat removed by lyposuction. Have sex without concern for having a baby and you get the by-product which needs to be disposed of…abortion.

It doesn’t prevent STDs which are now rampant and attacking younger people. STDs that cause cancer, sterility, and even death. We have free sex and more unhappy people who can’t have meaningful relationships.

Over population is a myth and people starve because of greed. Governments who deliberately make it hard for their own people to feed themselves or to allow others to help them with donations.

Pope Paul VI made the right call.

 

[WesleyF]

The authority to bind and release **was given by Christ **to Peter hard on the heels of his admission of Christ as the Messiah. In the very next breath, Christ rebuked Peter as “Satan”. Peter had blundered, even though he was the very first Pope.

Actually, that’s not accurate. The authority was not yet given to Peter. Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom…”. That’s the future tense. The keys were not yet given to Peter. So when Peter “blundered”, he was not yet Pope. That does not mean that Popes cannot blunder; it just means that in the above case Peter was not yet pope when he blundered.

 

[cooterhein]

I am glad that the Catholic church respects the mystery of sex which refers to the union of Christ and his church. Any thoughts?

Yes, I do have one thought. There may be several reasons why you believe contraception is impermissible, but one of them stands above the rest. It stands alone, with or without any of the other ones- and if necessary, in spite of anything else.

The CC deems it impermissible and sinful. That’s the giant, standalone reason.

So my thought is this: If the CC ever alters its position through some development that would make it more permissible, you’ll have to make different arguments from Scripture and Tradition. You’ll also have to backtrack on the ones you’re making now. So maybe you make sure you don’t trek too far down less-important paths, just in case you have to come back at some point. Keep it in perspective. In the end, your interpretation of Scripture or Tradition doesn’t govern where you go with this. Magisterial authority governs where you take it.

Put another way, you live with the results of other people’s thinking. So yeah, for your own benefit, you should certainly come up with reasons why you should feel good about what they did and you are now agreeing with. But there’s two things in my mind that might not be in your mind to the same extent: One, in case these other people give you different results, don’t get too attached to the old ones. And two, speaking as a non-Catholic, it kind of feels like you’re asking me to live with the results of your own thinking, and this is something you’re not even willing to live with.

 

[WesleyF]

The CC deems it impermissible and sinful. That’s the giant, standalone reason.

Yes, it is. I always see how I can support the teachings of the Catholic church through scripture so that I can reason with non-Catholic Christians who do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. I am simply reasoning from the scriptures here. You don’t need to bring the Catholic Church into the picture. If you disagree with my reasoning, show me what is wrong with my reasoning.

So my thought is this: If the CC ever alters its position through some development that would make it more permissible, you’ll have to make different arguments from Scripture and Tradition. You’ll also have to backtrack on the ones you’re making now.

I do not think the Catholic Church will ever alter this teaching because I believe that Christ protects it from teaching error. Therefore, I live without fear in this regard and I will hold to the argument I am making from scripture, because it is so clear.

Put another way, you live with the results of other people’s thinking.

This example of contraception is not about thinking. This is about Tradition. I abide by the Traditions of the Catholic Church. And I don’t live with the results of other people’s thinking; I live by the teachings of the Church which I believe Jesus promised to protect. I believe that when the Catholic church teaches infallibly, it is Christ who teaches and it is not merely a product of the thinking of other people.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I do have one thought. There may be several reasons why you believe contraception is impermissible, but one of them stands above the rest. It stands alone, with or without any of the other ones- and if necessary, in spite of anything else.

The CC deems it impermissible and sinful. That’s the giant, standalone reason.

So my thought is this: If the CC ever alters its position through some development that would make it more permissible, you’ll have to make different arguments from Scripture and Tradition. You’ll also have to backtrack on the ones you’re making now. So maybe you make sure you don’t trek too far down less-important paths, just in case you have to come back at some point. Keep it in perspective. In the end, your interpretation of Scripture or Tradition doesn’t govern where you go with this. Magisterial authority governs where you take it.

Put another way, you live with the results of other people’s thinking. So yeah, for your own benefit, you should certainly come up with reasons why you should feel good about what they did and you are now agreeing with. But there’s two things in my mind that might not be in your mind to the same extent: One, in case these other people give you different results, don’t get too attached to the old ones. And two, speaking as a non-Catholic, it kind of feels like you’re asking me to live with the results of your own thinking, and this is something you’re not even willing to live with.

I suggest you read “The Bible and Birth Control” by Charles Provan and then get back to us. One Protestant says The Bible says NO BIRTH CONTROL. He also points out what the so called reformers also say

If Martin Luther were alive today, would he not disapprove of many Christians who view children as a bad thing, and so practice birth control to prevent God from sending more blessings to them? … Truly Scriptural principles do not change at all: therefore Christians should willingly receive the blessings which God has for us, and not try to prevent them.

• John Calvin in his Commentary on Genesis 38:8-10 states:

"Besides, he [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify the ground, rather than beget a son in his brother’s name.

Verse 10: The Jews quite immodestly gabble concerning this thing. It will suffice for me briefly to have touched upon this as much as modesty in speaking permits. The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall to the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born–the hoped for offspring.

swrb.com/Puritan/bible-birth-control.htm

You can find this stuff at the above website. One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and Three Protestants against your opinion.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I am glad that the Catholic church respects the mystery of sex which refers to the union of Christ and his church. Any thoughts?

Sex does not refer to the union of Christ and the Church. Marriage refers to the union of Christ and the Church.

 

[WesleyF]

Sex does not refer to the union of Christ and the Church. Marriage refers to the union of Christ and the Church.

Sex also does. The “two becoming one” is a phrase that also refers to sex. See 1 Cor 6:16, where the “two becoming one” is a reference to sex. A man does not need to marry a prostitute to become one with her; he only needs to have sex with her. So there are two senses in which a man can become one with a woman.

When a man marries a woman he becomes one with her. But whenever he has sex with her, he becomes one with her in a different sense. The same can be said about Christ and the Church. We have married him so we are already one with him. At the same time we enjoy deep moments of intimacy with him which are analogous to the intimacy enjoyed by a couple while having sex. That’s becoming one with the spouse in a different sense.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Actually, that’s not accurate. The authority was not yet given to Peter. Jesus said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom…”. That’s the future tense. The keys were not yet given to Peter. So when Peter “blundered”, he was not yet Pope. That does not mean that Popes cannot blunder; it just means that in the above case Peter was not yet pope when he blundered.

The keys to the kingdom came at Pentecost, but not Vatican I.

Even after that, Peter still blundered. Paul had to rebuke him on the question of circumcision. It took the sheet being lowered from heaven to get him to realise the Judaic dietary laws no longer had effect.

There’s even a tradition somewhere that Peter was fleeing the persecution in Rome, when he saw Christ carrying His cross back into Rome. He turned around. But that’s only a tradition.

As far as I’m concerned, Pope Paul VI erred on the contraceptive pill. Sure, the rulling is binding. But it can also be “loosed”, in case those who think that rulings can’t be challenged. Christ put the term “loosed” in there for a reason. He didn’t waste words.

 

[WesleyF]

Even after that, Peter still blundered. Paul had to rebuke him on the question of circumcision.

Popes can err in their personal life, but not in matters of teaching the whole church. That’s the Catholic faith.

As far as I’m concerned, Pope Paul VI erred on the contraceptive pill.

I cannot hold this as a Catholic. His teaching on the matter is infallible.

Sure, the rulling is binding. But it can also be “loosed”, in case those who think that rulings can’t be challenged. Christ put the term “loosed” in there for a reason. He didn’t waste words.

One cannot loose moral laws. But one can loose moral disciplines. The prohibition of contraception is not merely an ecclesiastical discipline, but it is a matter of doctrine. Doctrines cannot change. Disciplines can.

There is a discipline in the Catholic church that priests cannot marry. But that can certainly be loosed, because it is not a matter of doctrine. However, contraception is a matter of doctrine and not discipline, and therefore, it cannot be loosed.

 

[CompSciGuy]

You know, back when I was a Presbyterian (during the more faithful years of my Protestantism, before I became an agnostic) the whole idea of birth control was something that I couldn’t reconcile in my mind. I sort of accepted that it was ok, provided it was done in the context of marriage. But philosophically, etc. I couldn’t reconcile it. When you think about it, yes, sexual relations do bring unity and they’re supposed to, but at the most basic level the whole purpose of the sexual drive is for reproduction. That’s the whole reason we have that instinct. When you use contraception you’re really using the sexual drive for something other than what it’s meant for. When you use something for a purpose other than which it was intended, that’s called abusing it. There are two implications here. Number one, you are working against God’s own design when you do this. In every other circumstance when you use sex in a way other than it is intended, for example, in the case of homosexual acts, fornication, or adultery, this is considered sin. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to consider that contraception may be sin for the same reasons. Secondly, on a natural level if the purpose of the sexual drive is reproduction, and we indulge in the sexual drive without actually reproducing anyone, it seems like there would have to be some negative side effects, either physically, psychologically, or some other way. I’m not saying definitively that there is, since I haven’t done the research, but really think about it. Ghandi had the same idea.

 

[Mudgely]

This is from Wikipedia. I found it interesting:

The Catholic Church is morally opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse. This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity.[2] Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence. Modern scientific methods of “periodic abstinence” such as natural family planning (NFP) were counted as a form of abstinence by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.[3] The following is the condemnation of contraception:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

A number of other documents provide more insight into the Church’s position on contraception. The commission appointed to study the question in the years leading up to Humanae Vitae issued two reports, a majority report explaining why the Church could change its teaching on contraception, and a minority report which explains the reasons for upholding the traditional Christian view on contraception.[4] In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled “Vademecum for Confessors” (2:4) which states “[t]he Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception.”[5] Furthermore, many Church Fathers condemned the use of contraception.[6][7]

The 1987 document Donum Vitae opposes in-vitro fertilization on grounds that it is harmful to embryos. Later on, the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae denounces embryonic manipulations and new methods of contraception.

Other Catholics have voiced significant disagreement with the Church’s stance on contraception, despite Church teaching that dissent from dogmatically defined dogmas, such as the Church’s teaching on contraception, is a mortal sin and bars a Catholic from reception of the Blessed Sacrament.[8] The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued what many interpreted as a dissenting document, the Winnipeg Statement. In it, the bishops recognized that many Catholics found it “either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine” (that of Humanae Vitae).[9] Additionally, they reasserted the Catholic principle of primacy of conscience,[9] a principle that they said should be properly interpreted, since they insisted that “a Catholic Christian is not free to form his conscience without consideration of the teaching of the magisterium, in the particular instance exercised by the Holy Father in an encyclical letter”.[10] Theologians such as Charles Curran have also criticized the stance of Humanae Vitae on artificial birth control. According to the American Enterprise Institute, 78% of Catholics say they believe the Church should allow Catholics to use birth control, though other polls reflect different numbers.[11]

 

[Bezant]

For the most part, I think the Church is correct, and there’s certainly a compelling idea IMO that it’s not good biologically–for a woman to spend years and years on hormonal treatments (don’t you lot have enough of those already? ). There is a lie in society that regulating sex is a completely unreliable contraceptive. It may be more difficult, it may be less reliable than other methods, and it may be problematic for many women, but it can work.

What I find questionable, however, is that contracepting illegally is a mortal sin.