M
MainBrain
Guest
Can anyone give me the logic why Catholicism considers contraception a sin. A well known Catholic on YouTube made sense with his argument on YouTube.
- Status
K
kptrs
Guest
Because it separates the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect of sex.
A
Autumn_Smoke
Guest
because it is killing a potential life. IMHO
The Church teaches that sex is “ordered” toward two aims, and that a married couple must be open to these aspects whenever they make love.
Unitive element: This basically means that sex is supposed to be the highest expression of the love of two married people. It unites them and allows them to express their love bodily, and give themselves as a gift to the other.
Procreative element: This means that all sexual acts should be “open to the possibility” of life. It doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to use natural methods to avoid, but it means that the sex act should be open to life in all cases.
Another reason I can think of is related to the unitive and aspect of self-gift. If you are giving yourself as a gift to your spouse in marriage, you should be open to ALL that person has to offer, including fertility. In my mind, contraception basically reduces the dignity of spouses by making them into facilitators of mutual masturbation as they have closed off the procreative aspect and therefore damage the unitive aspect.
Unitive element: This basically means that sex is supposed to be the highest expression of the love of two married people. It unites them and allows them to express their love bodily, and give themselves as a gift to the other.
Procreative element: This means that all sexual acts should be “open to the possibility” of life. It doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to use natural methods to avoid, but it means that the sex act should be open to life in all cases.
Another reason I can think of is related to the unitive and aspect of self-gift. If you are giving yourself as a gift to your spouse in marriage, you should be open to ALL that person has to offer, including fertility. In my mind, contraception basically reduces the dignity of spouses by making them into facilitators of mutual masturbation as they have closed off the procreative aspect and therefore damage the unitive aspect.
E
E_7
Guest
It is not a Catholic thing. It’s a Natural Law thing which we all are born with. In my own words, the logic behind it is that it rejects the totality and wholeness of the person including the capability of conceiving.
K
kptrs
Guest
Beautifully said! :clapping: :yup:
M
mvercimak
Guest
In concept the Church does approve of contraception. The current name for it is Natural Family Planning. In the past it was called the “Rhythm Method”. In either case the couple involved want to avoid conception or delay conception. All kinds of finagling is involved: tracking the fertile cycle, daily body temps, examining cervical mucus etc. all to keep the little sperm from a rendezvous with a cooperative and unfulfilled egg. Why not just slip on a condom? The desire and the objective of both approaches is exactly the same. In both instances the couples may be entirely “open to life” if the contraceptive method fails (which is a distinct possibility in either case). It is dishonest and deceptive to claim to be against contraception yet approve of a method that is logically and fundamentally indistinguishable and, when successful leads to the same end.
K
Katherine438
Guest
The Natural Family Planning method does not take God out of the equation … I had an Aunt who was post-menopausal and as far as the doctor was concerned could not have a baby any longer … so she used no family planning method at all … well guess what … she got pregnant. Then the same doctor told her that because of her age the baby may be born with retardation or medical issues … my Aunt is Catholic and left it up to God … 9 months later she delivered a perfectly healthy baby girl … and many years later she has proven over and over to be a special present to our family … leaving the possibility open to creation by not using some kind of rubber to keep it out is the basis that the Catholics are going by … if God wants a baby to be born, there is nothing man-made stopping it from happening.
V
Vico
Guest
In Married Love and the Gift of Life, 2006, U.S. Bishops say,
A failure to respect married love’s power to help create new life has eroded respect for life and for the sanctity of marriage.
And
When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love.
And
NFP respects the God-given power to love a new human life into being even when we are not actively seeking to exercise that power.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm
D
Dorothy
Guest
With prayer and the sacraments it is possible for a married couple to cooperate with the Lord, by putting Him first in all things. In this way the couple is sanctified and draws closer to the Lord.
No, the Church does not agree with contraception in concept…whatever that means.
Again, no…NFP can be used for both avoiding and trying to get pregnant. Condoms have one purpose and that is to prevent pregnancy.
This sentence doesn’t actually make any sense. The couple were not open to life in their attitude when using contraception, just because the contraceptive method fails doesn’t mean they are any more open to life.
Well, as I said the end of NFP can be to achieve pregnancy. The difference between NFP and contraception is that NFP works with the woman’s cycle and natural bodily functions to allow the couple to either conceive or avoid.
Your argument is deceptive and dishonest.
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
In marriage, Catholics are to be open to life which means not using contraception. The marital act is to be both unitive and procreative.
E
E_7
Guest
And the purpose not loving nor accepting the wholeness of the person. It divides love from sex and becomes lustful.
R
Rau
Guest
It is not difficult to see the distinction between abstaining from sex at times and “corrupting” the sex act to eliminate part of its nature.
The “wrong” in contraception is not the end of avoiding children (for a time), but the means adopted to do so.
R
Rau
Guest
Why do you focus on the common aim? Wishing to limit or defer children is not an evil intention - it can be entirely reasonable and responsible . The wrong is in the act of contraception - the means - itself, not the reason you do it.
For example, it is wrong to lie in court for the good intention of wanting to see a criminal taken off the street and the vulnerable protected. We cannot judge the goodness or otherwise of acts based on the motivation. Yes, to act morally, the motivation for the act must be good, but so too must the act in itself.
Two acts that share a common (good) motivation can’t be declared both good just because of that common motivation. One may be good, the other evil.
Agree with Rau here. There is a big difference between using natural methods to avoid and using an artificial method to basically render the marital act barren.
If we were to follow your logic then it would be wrong for a married couple to have sex at any time other than around ovulation.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Slight correction, …“which means not directly intending to contracept.”
There are some legitimate occasions for using contraceptives.
R
redbaron162
Guest
I believe there is a an exemption for those who are forced to use a medication for a medical reason other than contraception, which has the secondary effect of being a contraceptive. (Of course any mental jump roping to try to justify that when it is not in fact needed would be known to God and still be a sin)
My wife and I just had our first baby, and are thrilled. That being said I am freaked out at the possibility of having another quickly. Don’t get me wrong I am very open to more children, even a large family despite our limited means, but just want them spaced out some in between. It has taken some courage to put our foot down and tell others (like her OB) and ourselves that we will not be using contraceptives when it is so easy, accepted, and tempting to use. But we have decided no matter what we will be faithful. When it comes down to it there is no way to talk your way out of it. The Church has, in its proper authority, deemed contraceptive to be immoral and that is that.
P
pensmama87
Guest
For me, the easiest explanation comes down to this: What are our reproductive organs for? How do they work? It’s not moral to stop the healthy, normal functioning of any of our other systems (if you vomit up the food you eat so you can have the pleasure of eating but not consume the calories, we call that an eating disorder.)
Hormones to correct malfunctioning organs or at least to relieve suffering can be therapeutic and so there’s no issue there. But when the system is working properly, no, it’s not moral to disrupt it, just like anything else with our bodies.
NFP, when used to avoid pregnancy, changes nothing about the spouses or the act. It still works as God intended it to work.
Hormones to correct malfunctioning organs or at least to relieve suffering can be therapeutic and so there’s no issue there. But when the system is working properly, no, it’s not moral to disrupt it, just like anything else with our bodies.
NFP, when used to avoid pregnancy, changes nothing about the spouses or the act. It still works as God intended it to work.
- Status