Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Blue_Horizon]

I think we agree on self-defence.

You acknowledge that the death of the criminal is in fact willed in CP, and for a particular (good) intention. That would seem to rule out indirect intention and settle the debate.

The Church correctly argues that CP is not intrinsically evil, and that it is “modern day circumstances” that enable morally superior alternatives - superior by virtue of more good and less harm in the consequences. [All that is prudential judgement being exercised by Church leaders.]. If a “State” knows that CP is excessive, then the killing is “unlawful killing” and intrinsically evil. [Somewhat akin to Aquinas pointing out that excessive force in self-defence is not licit.]. Of course in the CP case, it may be difficult to figure out upon whose conscience that wrong rests.

We need to be careful to not equate immorality judged by a consideration of all the fonts with the intrinsic evil inherent in acting contrary to the negative precepts of the law.

Of course Blue, I do concede you may in fact be leading the Magisterium in these matters.

You are certainly not mistaken in observing that there is a strong Church tradition that tries to argue that the direct killing definition of CP is not intrinsically evil. Yet this definition of CP clearly breaks the normal Catholic translation of the 5th Commandment which defines objective mortal sin.

But you would be mistaken to conclude there has not been an equally long tradition that argues against this once mainstream school of medieval theology.
The latter theological opinion has in recent times become mainstream and I believe has the support of the Pope’s for at least the last 50 yes.
The theology as not been finally decided either way re CP and I belive you are mistaken to believe so. In 50 yrs I will be able to “told ya so.”

Re considering all the fonts…sometime a consideration of all the details of a complete moral act causes us to move the dividing line between which details belong to objective matter and
which details belong to “circumstances/consequences”. This may necessarily cause us to redefine the exact nature of what we previously thought the “matter” actually was.
Thus in irregular marriages we might move from adultery to fornication, in certain medical procedures from abortion to healing, in State killings from executions to State self defence, in personal attacks from murder to self defence.

Such is the renaming “sleight of hand” that moral theology acceptably allows in renaming the grave matter of acts prudentially judged as involving indirect intention or not.

 

[Rau]

You are certainly not mistaken in observing that there is a strong Church tradition that tries to argue that the direct killing definition of CP is not intrinsically evil.

It does not “try to argue it”, rather it holds it definitively and has done so throughout history to the present day.

Yet this definition of CP clearly breaks the normal Catholic translation of the 5th Commandment which defines objective mortal sin.

But not the meaning.

But you would be mistaken to conclude there has not been an equally long tradition that argues against this once mainstream school of medieval theology.
The latter theological opinion has in recent times become mainstream and I believe has the support of the Pope’s for at least the last 50 yes.
The theology as not been finally decided either way re CP and I belive you are mistaken to believe so. In 50 yrs I will be able to “told ya so.”

Re considering all the fonts…sometime a consideration of all the details of a complete moral act causes us to move the dividing line between which details belong to objective matter and
which details belong to “circumstances/consequences”. This may necessarily cause us to redefine the exact nature of what we previously thought the “matter” actually was.
Thus in irregular marriages we might move from adultery to fornication, in certain medical procedures from abortion to healing, in State killings from executions to State self defence, in personal attacks from murder to self defence.

Such is the renaming “sleight of hand” that moral theology acceptably allows in renaming the grave matter of acts prudentially judged as involving indirect intention or not.

The last 50 years of commentary on CP has always been about what is moral “in these times”. No Pope has argued that CP is actually an intrinsic evil. Today’s mainstream theological opinion is about the “morality” of the act, with its intention, moral object and circumstances/consequences considered, not about intrinsic evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue, You mentioned contraception in your prior post. When you say it is OK in rare cases, this begs the question of what is meant by “contraception”. It is not taught that it is always wrong to (say) “disable sperm en route to the ovum”. Such an act is contraception by the dictionary, for the dictionary uses the word to describe “action” rather than the far more nuanced “human act” of theology. * Post-rape treatment is not contraception (the human act which is forbidden) but is dictionary contraception. Nor is it contraception for the rape victim who cannot escape to beg the rapist to don a condom, or withdraw prior to ejaculation. These are not “exceptions” to the rule forbidding (the human act of) contraception, these are a different act.

My mind goes back to the Zika debate. A woman beset upon by a man demanding sex when the great unwisdom (lack of charity) of that act is clear (complete with mosquito bites to prove it) may resist that force. Even when that man is her miserable excuse for a husband. But can two lovers agree to don a condom so that they may enjoy a sexual encounter now without risk of a Zika baby? No. Nor to avoid Down’s syndrome nor myriad other risks. Why? Because that act is contraception, and its good intention does not change this.*

I hope I said “contracepting” may be acceptable in rare cases. I am trying to reduce confusion by distinguishing the immoral act as a whole from the secular definition of the outward activity.

I have below already raised the secular difficulty of defining what activity validly constitutes contracepting. I do not know if there is a single clearly agreed social definition which makes debate even more difficult. NFP could be viewed as a form of “contracepting”. Even abstention could be viewed as a form of contracepting amongst the married if children are considered by society to be “promised” by the marriage contract.

I think I agree with everything else you say above too except the Zika lovers.
The evil here is surely just fornication rather than contracepted fornication if we accept forced Zika wife does not commit contraception by wanting condom use?
I get the impression from your lovers that they aren’t contracepting for health purposes…unless fertility is considered a disease!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It does not “try to argue it”, rather it holds it definitively and has done so throughout history to the present day.

But not the meaning.

The last 50 years of commentary on CP has always been about what is moral “in these times”. No Pope has argued that CP is actually an intrinsic evil. Today’s mainstream theological opinion is about the “morality” of the act, with its intention, moral object and circumstances/consequences considered, not about intrinsic evil.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree on whether the Church has explicitly taught that CP is defined as a direct killing AND can be justified purely on the grounds of a retributive justice without implicit state self defence also being involved.

It clearly contradicts the absolute 5thC thou shall not kill.
I am not aware of any clear “meaning” you speak of explicitated by the Magisterium in recent times contrary to this translation.

 

[Rau]

I hope I said “contracepting” may be acceptable in rare cases. I am trying to reduce confusion by distinguishing the immoral act as a whole from the secular definition of the outward activity.

OK.

I have below already raised the secular difficulty of defining what activity validly constitutes contracepting. I do not know if there is a single clearly agreed social definition which makes debate even more difficult. NFP could be viewed as a form of “contracepting”. Even abstention could be viewed as a form of contracepting amongst the married if children are considered by society to be “promised” by the marriage contract.

We discussed this and you seemed to agree with me. Your remarks here seem to intentionally muddy the waters, moving away from what I think you know is the proper meaning of the words when used in a discussion of morality.

I think I agree with everything else you say above too except the Zika lovers.

The evil here is surely just fornication rather than contracepted fornication if we accept forced Zika wife does not commit contraception by wanting condom use?
I get the impression from your lovers that they aren’t contracepting for health purposes…unless fertility is considered a disease!

Actually, in my mind, I envisioned a married couple. Hopefully they are lovers? But BTW, I’m sure I’ve seen you make the point that contraception does not require marriage as a prerequisite?

Forced (and I mean “forced”) wife is analogous to rape victim. A controversial statement for sure!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

OK.

We discussed this and you seemed to agree with me. Your remarks here seem to intentionally muddy the waters, moving away from what I think you know is the proper meaning of the words when used in a discussion of morality.

Actually, in my mind, I envisioned a married couple. Hopefully they are lovers? But BTW, I’m sure I’ve seen you make the point that contraception does not require marriage as a prerequisite?

Forced (and I mean “forced”) wife is analogous to rape victim. A controversial statement for sure!

Not trying to muddy the waters. If we try to clarify Church teaching to secular society (which includes half formed Catholics) we have to use words where definitions are agreed
when speaking of objective activities (“contracepting”) or else we will arrive at moral conclusions they will rightly find objectionable if they hold to a different understanding of the objective activity under scrutiny.

Not quite sure what your 2nd last sentence means.

 

[Rau]

Not trying to muddy the waters. If we try to clarify Church teaching to secular society (which includes half formed Catholics) we have to use words where definitions are agreed when speaking of objective activities (“contracepting”) or else we will arrive at moral conclusions they will rightly find objectionable if they hold to a different understanding of the objective activity under scrutiny.

The problem is that some language tends to remove the very moral content that is being addressed. Statements such as “the ends don’t justify the means” cannot be understood if “means” is not well understood in terms of moral content. “I shot the man and he died” or “I killed the man” or “I cut off the man’s arm” does not clearly expose whether a good or evil means was adopted, nor does it remark on the ends either.] The way you have used “contracepting” is similar - the moral content is removed.

I note that if one reads the whole of HV (just as an example), and not just the one sentence “bottom line” oft quoted, one would not conclude that the teaching equates the human act of contraception with the full scope of activities that you identify as falling under “contracepting”.

 

[Rau]

Not quite sure what your 2nd last sentence means.

“I’ll sulk for the next week” if you won’t have sex with me is not what I mean by forced. Forced is not a definitive term, but involves the loss or severe diminishing of a capacity to choose.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The problem is that some language tends to remove the very moral content that is being addressed. Statements such as “the ends don’t justify the means” cannot be understood if “means” is not well understood in terms of moral content.

I agree but here I am simply referring to concrete, objective, observable activity that all humans ought to be able to agreeably define if it truly is “objective”.
As below you do not accept that either abstention or NFP by the married is correctly called contracepting. Others, likely those not formed by Catholic society, probably do.
I would accept that NFP can be called contracepting even if I would not accept that freely choosing to do so is not a "contraceptive moral act.

Until this “objective matter” of a human choice in question is agreed upon (it doesnt really matter what you name it as long as both people agree on the definition and are hence speaking of the same physical situation) it is fruitless to go on and make conclusions about the morality of freely choosing to engage in such human acts because we cannot even agree about its objective details/circumstances.

Does this mean moral discourse is impossible with the scular world if they have a different vocab from us? I hope not. Objective reality is supposed to exist even if the words we use to indicate what we have in mind are different.

It is not helpful for Catholics to impose their definitions on secular society when doing Apologetics.

Thus I find it singularly unhelpful when priests says the Consecrated Elements are no longer bread or wine. Of course they are if we abstract from belief and take the perceptions and definitions of secular society as a starting point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“I’ll sulk for the next week” if you won’t have sex with me is not what I mean by forced. Forced is not a definitive term, but involves the loss or severe diminishing of a capacity to choose.

Sorry. I meant

"But BTW, I’m sure I’ve seen you make the point that contraception does not require marriage as a prerequisite? ".

You may be right but my thinking does evolve under new and weird discussions!
This may be one of them!

If one makes a choice whose inherent teleology ends in children … then to also act in such a way as to thwart that teleology…that sounds like contracepting to me.

Under this definition, if a couple decide to marry and then practise NFP…that sounds like contracepting to me. I don’t think being married or not makes any difference. The sexual act itself has children as its inherent teleology.

If they permanently abstained, under this definition, that probably would be contracepting. So yes, marriage looks to make a difference in this case.
One does not commit to having children while in the single state so chastity in this state is not contracepting.

Now the above probably isnt the Church’s definition of contracepting…but its not an invalid one and it is how some of our more secular posters think.

Note that regardless of the above definition - I see a world of difference between “the inherently immoral act of contraception” and “contracepting”.

“Contracepting” does not appear to be inherently evil grave matter.

 

[Rau]

**If one makes a choice ****** whose inherent teleology ends in children … then to also act in such a way as to thwart that teleology…that sounds like contracepting to me.

The discussion is not about what behaviour “sounds like” or what words might mean or seem to mean in some linguistic sense. Avoiding children may “sound” like contraception to some, but only through failure to understand the meaning of contraception you understand…] and where the moral content lies. To me, your bolded text sounds like no more than “avoiding children” - which contains no moral content. And as we know, there are licit means to avoid children not involving contraception at all, and there are illicit means.

Under this definition, if a couple decide to marry and then practise NFP…that sounds like contracepting to me…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The discussion is not about what behaviour “sounds like” or what words might mean or seem to mean in some linguistic sense. Avoiding children may “sound” like contraception to some, but only through failure to understand the meaning of contraception you understand…] and where the moral content lies. To me, your bolded text sounds like no more than “avoiding children” - which contains no moral content. And as we know, there are licit means to avoid children not involving contraception at all, and there are illicit means.

Probably because the definition with which you commenced was no good [or at best, is so expanded as to manufacture confusion where none was necessary]! I think it is of dubious merit to adopt language that allows one to simultaneously declare that the couple practicing NFP for a time “is contacepting” but not committing act(s) of “contraception”. If you build on poor foundations, you will come ‘a cropper’.

Same remarks as above. And see also below about use of language.

Probably? When the Church teaches about contraception, I think we can be reasonably confident that the verb “to contracept” has the consistent meaning, since to mean something else use just creates confusion.

I think as a general rule, and as far as possible, different parts of speech (pertaining to the same word) ought to be used in a given conversation with the same underlying meaning - unless those in discussion are quite clued up and agreed on the different meaning they intend.

That’s because you are using the word to describe an activity stripped of moral meaning. I can say that because I am “in the know” (as to what you mean…). Someone coming new to a discussion on contraception would only get your meaning after you explained it. It’s an irritation that words sometimes have nuanced meanings (and not strictly in accord with the dictionary!), but even worse when they are used inconsistently in the same conversation.

That’s because you are using the word to describe an activity stripped of moral meaning.

Rau your responses above indicates, I humbly suggest, an unwillingness to meet non-Catholics on common ground. Its an attitude perpetuated since Trent which I think its time to move on from.

To meet on common ground we must first be able to objectively describe the observed activity…objectively! That does require abstracting as much as possible from definitions and language that connote “moral meaning” … that is how we want to conclude not how we start!

Catholic Apologetics (or even inter Catholic discussion) becomes impossible if we cannot establish such objective common ground with others. Try talking about transubstantiation by starting out saying we are no longer eating bread and wine and see how far that gets you. This is pure Trent, give no quarter even in common sense observable definitions taken for granted by secular society. If it is a wrong way to view reality then they need to be led to that point by conceding that in normal English the Consecrated Elements are in fact legitimately called bread and wine.

You seem to be making the same mistake re the somewhat esoteric and ambiguous Catholic understanding/definition of the word “contraception”.

In point of fact most lay Catholics do not really understand the definition and use the word very inconsistently and ambiguously anyways.

Anyways, even in Catholic theology I think it is perfectly consistant to say that the sort of observable activities that fall under the banner “contracepting” … do not necessarily become immoral “contraceptive human acts” even when freely chosen.

Is this not what the objective “material font” in fact attempts to do? This font certainly has moral applicability (when considered together with the other two fonts it enable us to make a final prudential judgement as to the moral goodness of specific human acts.

 

[Rau]

Rau your responses above indicates, I humbly suggest, an unwillingness to meet non-Catholics on common ground.

Not it’s not that - it’s recognition that we need to use language consistently - which avoids confusion rather than creates it.

…give no quarter even in common sense observable definitions taken for granted by secular society.

It is not common sense to distinguish, in a discussion of morality, the noun “contraception” from the verb “to contracept” and to hold them to be about quite different things (unless one then goes and points out what one means). Precisely such poor use of language leads the less well-studied to misunderstand where the immorality in an act lies eg. such that they may think NFP and contraception are “the same” and the Church is making “no sense”.

In point of fact most lay Catholics do not really understand the definition and use the word very inconsistently and ambiguously anyways.

But in so doing, they do not make a good case to continue doing so!

Anyways, even in Catholic theology I think it is perfectly consistant to say that the sort of observable activities that fall under the banner “contracepting” … do not necessarily become immoral “contraceptive human acts” even when freely chosen.

Who says the things you have in mind 'fall under the banner “contracepting” '? You assume the very issue in debate!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is not common sense to distinguish, in a discussion of morality, the noun “contraception” from the verb “to contracept” and to hold them to be about quite different things (unless one then goes and points out what one means). Precisely such poor use of language leads the less well-studied to misunderstand where the immorality in an act lies eg. such that they may think NFP and contraception are “the same” and the Church is making “no sense”.

It seems you may not quite understand the point I have been making here.

It is not simply a matter of using the verb or the noun.
The problem is that English does not have the vocabulary needed to quickly refer to the very different realities I am attempting to bring to your attention by distinguishing “contracepting” from “human acts of contraception.” You will note these are both verbal usages - I find use of the noun (whether contraception or contraceptive) not all all helpful as the former is highly ambiguous and the latter is not the subject of moral investigation nor does it take in all types of contracepting (even those you would accept ).

Well established traditions re the morality of death has a wonderful vocab to choose from - some with moral import (murder, manslaughter, lethal self-defence, slaughter) …others which are completely neutral and non-leading (to kill) but which still well defines the observable action we are morally investigating.

I use the word “contracepting” as an analogue to “killing”. Its completely neutral and objective (scientific if you will) and yet also able to be further morally analysed/implicated when other details/circumstances are additionally defined in any specific example. It should also be a word whose meaning is acceptable to both secular and religious English traditions alike.
Unfortunately you and mvercimak have below proven this is not the case.

I have attempted to demonstrate that if we accept that NFP could be considered a form of “contracepting” we can still show why this form of contracepting is not “an act of contraception” as the Church defines that concept (always immoral). The usual other forms of contracepting can still be demonstrated to be “acts of contraception” (always immoral). The basis of the justification of NFP, if we accept it can be called “contracepting”, is that it allows for indirect intentionality.

I accept this is not the way you systemise things theologically to arrive at the same conclusion. Given that we are dealing with a theological system and not the moral realities directly…it is natural that there is more than one systemic way of skinning a cat.

Who says the things you have in mind 'fall under the banner “contracepting” '? You assume the very issue in debate!

Why cannot “contracepting” simply be a physical definition like “killing”. Why must it have a moral meaning ab initio?

Most people (except Catholics) understand this implicitly. Its any action that stops the expected fertilisation (and possibly implantation) of an ovum. That could include sterilisation, NFP, use of chemicals or barriers (whether chosen for other purposes or not), withdrawal…and maybe even perpetual abstinence in the married.

Then when we can all agree on this scientific definition (which being quite wide like “killing”) with non Catholics and secular society (which follows a scientific approach to such definitions) a truly meaningful ethical debate can actually begin.

I cannot help but observe you are not commenting on my analogous Eucharistic observations re the differences between Catholics and secular society when it comes to approaches to vocabularising reality…

 

[Rau]

…The problem is that English does not have the vocabulary needed to quickly refer to the very different realities I am attempting to bring to your attention by distinguishing “contracepting” from “human acts of contraception.”

No, it’s not that you see realities I don’t. I simply object to expression or use of language which IMHO manufactures confusion. And the degree of confusion varies with the reality to which you apply the word. But the following is at the high end of confusion:

If one says: “That couple are contracepting…they use NFP”, then I find that entirely unacceptable language given the statement gives an appearance (in the first part) diametrically opposed to what is happening (as per the second part) and facilitates precisely the “intentional misunderstandings” (sometimes “word-games”) that are all too common in NFP versus contraception debates.

I have attempted to demonstrate that if we accept that NFP could be considered a form of “contracepting” we can still show why this form of contracepting is not “an act of contraception” as the Church defines that concept (always immoral).

Well, sure we can. But I assert that to create the appearance of sameness (by choice of language) when many seek to argue that NFP and contraception are in fact the same, is an odd way to explain the Catholic stance. It’s not a course I would choose.

I accept this is not the way you systemise things theologically to arrive at the same conclusion. Given that we are dealing with a theological system and not the moral realities directly…it is natural that there is more than one systemic way of skinning a cat.

True. And I do hope that casual readers are not already confused, and do recognise that we each accept the same Catholic teaching concerning the sin of contraception, and that we each know NFP to be a licit means of deferring or avoiding children (which itself can be a perfectly proper aim), and it is a means which does not entail the sin called contraception.

I use the word “contracepting” as an analogue to “killing”. Its completely neutral and objective (scientific if you will) and yet also able to be further morally analysed/implicated when other details/circumstances are additionally defined in any specific example. It should also be a word whose meaning is acceptable to both secular and religious English traditions alike.
…Why cannot “contracepting” simply be a physical definition like “killing”. Why must it “contracepting”] have a moral meaning ab initio?

IMHO - it gives the strong appearance of having moral content because “contracepting” is rather too close to “contraception” which - in the context of these discussions - does have moral meaning. Kill, killing, killed, “to kill” don’t expose moral content (as you rightly said above). Murder exposes moral content, and all the words close to it, viz: “to murder”, “murdering”, “murdered” are words capturing the same moral content as “murder”. But you are wanting to use “contracepting” as being of different meaning than “contraception”. Sure you can do that if everybody gets a real clear heads-up first, but I don’t think it’s a wise use of language (if it can be avoided). In the case of contraception, there is no word that naturally relates to it as killing relates to (say) murder.

I cannot help but observe you are not commenting on my analogous Eucharistic observations re the differences between Catholics and secular society when it comes to approaches to vocabularising reality…

I don’t see the benefit that topic offers to this discussion. So to address it tends to cause the discussion to meander.

Blue - I question whether more time and space is warranted in repeating our respective opinions on the best way to express something.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, it’s not that you see realities I don’t. I simply object to expression or use of language which IMHO manufactures confusion. And the degree of confusion varies with the reality to which you apply the word. But the following is at the high end of confusion:

If one says: “That couple are contracepting…they use NFP”, then I find that entirely unacceptable language given the statement gives an appearance (in the first part) diametrically opposed to what is happening (as per the second part) and facilitates precisely the “intentional misunderstandings” (sometimes “word-games”) that are all too common in NFP versus contraception debates.

Well, sure we can. But I assert that to create the appearance of sameness (by choice of language) when many seek to argue that NFP and contraception are in fact the same, is an odd way to explain the Catholic stance. It’s not a course I would choose.

True. And I do hope that casual readers are not already confused, and do recognise that we each accept the same Catholic teaching concerning the sin of contraception, and that we each know NFP to be a licit means of deferring or avoiding children (which itself can be a perfectly proper aim), and it is a means which does not entail the sin called contraception.

IMHO - it gives the strong appearance of having moral content because “contracepting” is rather too close to “contraception” which - in the context of these discussions - does have moral meaning. Kill, killing, killed, “to kill” don’t expose moral content (as you rightly said above). Murder exposes moral content, and all the words close to it, viz: “to murder”, “murdering”, “murdered” are words capturing the same moral content as “murder”. But you are wanting to use “contracepting” as being of different meaning than “contraception”. Sure you can do that if everybody gets a real clear heads-up first, but I don’t think it’s a wise use of language (if it can be avoided). In the case of contraception, there is no word that naturally relates to it as killing relates to (say) murder.

I don’t see the benefit that topic offers to this discussion. So to address it tends to cause the discussion to meander.

Blue - I question whether more time and space is warranted in repeating our respective opinions on the best way to express something.

I am surprised at your unwillingness to accept that the Catholic Church likely uses words and defines them in a way somewhat at odds with society at large.

This is very clear in the way we speak of the Eucharist. To say in English that the Eucharist is not bread or wine defies comprehension.
Equally, to say that NFP should not be called contracepting is almost equally incomprehensible.

Apologetics simply cannot take place effectively with this medieval, Aristotelian approach to reality.

BTW I did not say " * wanting to use “contracepting” as being of different meaning than “contraception”. I said it is different from “the act of contraception” as understood by Scholastic Moral Theology (which is of course Aristotelian in outlook).

Is a “blackbox” a “black box” just because the words seem to be the same? (It is of course orange and always has been). I find it hard to believe someone as educated and intelligent as yourself refuses to distinguish between a title and the distinct juxta positioned words contained in a title.

For many “contracepting”, whether you like it or not, is simply a scientific, purely descriptive, morally neutral word - an analogue of “killing”. I have no problem being able to argue the immorality of most forms of contracepting, and the licitness of NFP, from this common sense definition. Some seculars may still disagree with the Church’s position but at least they can understand the rationale … unlike trying to “explain” transubstantiation by starting out with a denial of what is obvious…that the bread is indeed bread!

Anyways I do seem to have exceeded your credibility limits on these points so lets leave it here.*

 

[Rosebud77]

How does a condom change the sexual act? At the risk of becoming too graphic the male sex organ is used in the same way as if the condom was not present. The female counterpart also functions in the same way. The failure rate of condoms (around 18%) attests to the fact that it does not deprive the sexual act of the procreative function it simply makes it less likely that procreation will occur. The act of timing your sexual encounters to coincide with times in the female menstrual cycle when the uterine environment is hostile to the implantation of a fertilized ovum ,[using your terminology], also ‘deprives the sexual act of its procreative function’. In fact the case may be made that concentrating sexual intercourse in the periods when the uterine environment not conducive to implantation actually increases the likelihood that precocious or tardy egg will be fertilized and the resulting zygote/blastocyst will encounter a non receptive uterine lining and not be able to achieve implantation. Thus the effective use of NFP actually creates a situation more akin to an IUD or the so called ‘morning after’ pill in which a developing embryo [which the church tells us is a new human being complete with soul] cannot implant and is terminated. The condom, on the other hand, contains the sperm and prevents the loss of an embryo as described above. In this respect the condom is actually morally superior to NFP.

The contention that the use of a condom “changes the sexual act” or “deprives it of its procreative function” are terms that do not reflect reality but rather the preconceived bias of their author who believes his linguistic labels provide justification for his position.

 

[Rau]

I am surprised at your unwillingness to accept that the Catholic Church likely uses words and defines them in a way somewhat at odds with society at large. Strawman]

This is very clear in the way we speak of the Eucharist. To say in English that the Eucharist is not bread or wine defies comprehension.Strawman]
Equally, to say that NFP should not be called contracepting is almost equally incomprehensible.

Apologetics simply cannot take place effectively with this medieval, Aristotelian approach to reality.

BTW I did not say " * wanting to use “contracepting” as being of different meaning than “contraception”. I said it is different from “the act of contraception” as understood by Scholastic Moral Theology (which is of course Aristotelian in outlook).

Is a “blackbox” a “black box” just because the words seem to be the same? (It is of course orange and always has been). I find it hard to believe someone as educated and intelligent as yourself refuses to distinguish between a title and the distinct juxta positioned words contained in a title.Strawman*]

For many “contracepting”, whether you like it or not, is simply a scientific, purely descriptive, morally neutral word - an analogue of “killing”. I have no problem being able to argue the immorality of most forms of contracepting, and the licitness of NFP, from this common sense definition. Some seculars may still disagree with the Church’s position but at least they can understand the rationale … unlike trying to “explain” transubstantiation by starting out with a denial of what is obvious…that the bread is indeed bread! This seems to be a mix of “digging a deeper hole”, simple repetition and with the odd strawman thrown in! I’m happy to rest on what I’ve said already

Anyways I do seem to have exceeded your credibility limits on these points so lets leave it here.

 

[ArielRussu]

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.

Natural Law is a philosophy, a theory, an idea, a belief someone has. It’s not a concrete, set in stone, trialed and tested and proven fact like an actual law is. Unless I’m mistaking and the use of the word law in this context for the church is not like describing a law for the universe and instead a system of rules that followers of the Church must follow & believe unquestioningly or even if the don’t agree, must “humble” themselves and follow anyway because that is what the church says they must.

 

[naomanos6]

When my wife and I separated ( of divorced) I had no choice but to live with my parents if I wanted a roof over my head, so one of the conditions was that I got a vasectomy or I would find myself living in the streets. Their reasoning was that I already have seven kids (five from a prior non-marital relationship and two from my marriage) and I didn’t need anymore kids to support. So, I was forced to get a vasectomy.

If I had a choice, I wouldn’t of had the vasectomy, and that is why my priest says that is why I have been absolved of the sin because I was forced I to and wouldn’t have made the choice to do it if I wasn’t forced. He also said that if I was to remarry (I will be free to do so because my marriage wasn’t valid and I qualify for a lack of form) I am not required to abstain because again, I was forced to get the procedure done.

I just thought I would mention this circumstance. While it is an unusual circumstance, it is still valid and can be part of this discussion.