Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Rau]

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.

Your free and full consent to vasectomy would not limit the potential for absolution if you are truly sorry. And nor would you be required to abstain in future.

 

[Rau]

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.

The Natural Law is that which becomes apparent about moral behaviour from reason. It concludes that moral rules are derived from our nature and that of the world.

If you read Humanae Vitae (a statement of the Church’s teaching on contraception made in modern times) you’ll find a reference to natural law considerations (which I can paraphrase as “the design of our sexual capacity implies its intended use”) but that is not the total of the teaching regarding contraception.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The Natural Law is that which becomes apparent about ourselves from reason. It concludes that moral rules are derived from our nature and that of the world.

If you read Humanae Vitae (a statement of the Church’s teaching on contraception made in modern times) you’ll find a reference to natural law considerations (which I can paraphrase as “the design of our sexual capacity implies its intended use”) but that is not the total of the teaching regarding contraception.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

The problem with Natural Law concept, which you refreshingly define well by mentioning the use of reason, is that it is not particularly serviceable or helpful on socially contentious moral issues.

If right reason is required for making valid moral conclusions then the question in debated issues becomes which group (if either) is actually operating fully from right reason .

Given that significant percentages even of otherwise loyal Catholics personally and in good conscience see no grave problem with the use of artifical contraception in their own difficult circumstances despite their upbringing in the Church…that suggests right reason is just as hard to objectively discern as are some ethical questions themselves.

That’s probably OK, God simply wants us Catholics to follow our Church in matters of doubt and our consciences in matters of personal moral certainty…always attempting to sincerely re-inform ourselves when we might find ourselves regularly acting contrary to Church prohibitions.

 

[Rau]

…That’s probably OK, God simply wants us Catholics to follow our Church in matters of doubt and our consciences in matters of personal moral certainty…always attempting to sincerely re-inform ourselves when we might find ourselves regularly acting contrary to Church prohibitions.

I am not fixed in a position in this area, and am not sure I know the intent of what the Church is saying about Conscience (eg. as detailed in the Catechism).

Certainly I am uneasy at the idea that one’s conscience can provide a green light to do what the church emphatically teaches is wrong (and in fact, intrinsically so). [If the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, but I believe it is OK, but I submit to the Church - I’ve clearly not sinned.] On the other hand, it is clear that the conscience may lead one to turn away from an act that one personally believes is flawed, notwithstanding the Church finds no objection. [The Church (like the moral law in general) is definitive on the negatives and ‘directional’ on the positives.]

As an aside, it is not always easy to access one’s conscience. I think we can become adept at maintaining a status quo by not looking too hard.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As an aside, it is not always easy to access one’s conscience. I think we can become adept at maintaining a status quo by not looking too hard.

I just love the way that the authoritarian personality type can begrudgingly tolerate the Church’s clear speculative teaching on the primacy of informed personal conscience then in the next breath essentially deny this teaching’s applicability in ordinary pastoral practice.

I never suspected you were such a type but I am beginning to doubt .

At least you are not taking the “if they don’t do what the Church says then obviously they have not seriously informed themselves” approach.

In short what you opine is probably nobody’s business except that person’s freely chosen confessor…and even a priest can only prudentially judge what such persons may or may not be “accessing” re their conscience.

So in the end its between them and God…though of course acting contrary to Church teaching re grave matter, even in good conscience, should be done privately and may carry Canonical penalties where disciplinary banns are also involved (eg excommunication for abortion, no Communion for the irregularly remarried). Which I am sure the sincere would bear in good faith.

 

[Rau]

I just love the way that the authoritarian personality type can begrudgingly tolerate the Church’s clear speculative teaching on the primacy of informed personal conscience then in the next breath essentially deny this teaching’s applicability in ordinary pastoral practice.

I never suspected you were such a type but I am beginning to doubt .

Sorry Blue, I’ve no idea what you are talking about here! Perhaps if you address my specific remarks and omit speculation on personality types (mine, anyway)?

I’m unaware of anything representing “begrudging tolerance” in my post - I simply explained my uncertainty about the topic. If you have more insights regarding the points I made - feel free to share.

In short what you opine is probably nobody’s business except that person’s freely chosen confessor…and even a priest can only prudentially judge what such persons may or may not be “accessing” re their conscience.

I think my comment re: the difficulty of sincerely accessing conscience is true. I can see it in me from time to time, and I don’t think I’m unique. And I’m not suggesting the difficulty a particular person may face is anybody else’s business. I really don’t know why you responded as you did.

 

[ArielRussu]

The Natural Law is that which becomes apparent about moral behaviour from reason. It concludes that moral rules are derived from our nature and that of the world.

If you read Humanae Vitae (a statement of the Church’s teaching on contraception made in modern times) you’ll find a reference to natural law considerations (which I can paraphrase as “the design of our sexual capacity implies its intended use”) but that is not the total of the teaching regarding contraception.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

You are making the assumption that deep down everyone knows that contraception is wrong. Before I came across Catholic beliefs on contraception 3 years ago, it never ONCE occurred to me that there was any “moral issue” with contraception when used within marriage, at least according to Catholicism. There never was a nagging feeling about the issue, until it was brought to my attention by, at the time, another Catholic.

Your argument is saying that by thinking & reasoning, one will come to the conclusion that contraception is wrong through there own conscience. However, in order for that conscience to be in line with Catholic teaching, that would first require knowledge about the beliefs Catholicism holds about marriage & sex.

This is why, Natural Law, is not a real law. It is a theory, a speculated idea & belief. You only view it as a “law” and “fact” because the Catholic Church says it is. However, if you step back and look at history of, non Catholics or people unaffiliated and ignorant of the Churches views, ex. Native Anericans & Africans before European colonization, you will find that there conscious probably contains no issues with contraception until the idea was placed there by the beliefs of a religious organization that says it is wrong, because of the fact that we believe & teach that “sex must be unitive & procreative”. Step outside that belief and you will find that the “obvious” that is supposed to result from reason is not as obvious as you thought.

Unless of course only those with knowledge of Catholic doctrine are capable of appropriate reasoning? Which if “true” invalidates that proper moral reasoning, align with Church doctrine, is innate.

 

[Rau]

You are making the assumption that deep down everyone knows that contraception is wrong. Before I came across Catholic beliefs on contraception 3 years ago, it never ONCE occurred to me that there was any “moral issue” with contraception when used within marriage, at least according to Catholicism. There never was a nagging feeling about the issue, until it was brought to my attention by, at the time, another Catholic.

Your argument is saying that by thinking & reasoning, one will come to the conclusion that contraception is wrong through there own conscience. However, in order for that conscience to be in line with Catholic teaching, that would first require knowledge about the beliefs Catholicism holds about marriage & sex.

This is why, Natural Law, is not a real law. It is a theory, a speculated idea & belief. You only view it as a “law” and “fact” because the Catholic Church says it is. However, if you step back and look at history of, non Catholics or people unaffiliated and ignorant of the Churches views, ex. Native Anericans & Africans before European colonization, you will find that there conscious probably contains no issues with contraception until the idea was placed there by the beliefs of a religious organization that says it is wrong, because of the fact that we believe & teach that “sex must be unitive & procreative”. Step outside that belief and you will find that the “obvious” that is supposed to result from reason is not as obvious as you thought.

Unless of course only those with knowledge of Catholic doctrine are capable of appropriate reasoning? Which if “true” invalidates that proper moral reasoning, align with Church doctrine, is innate.

My post does not make any of the assumptions you propose. I made no argument - I just explained the meaning of natural law.

The rationale for the teaching on contraception is set out in HV. It’s worth reading.

Human reason does not depend on Catholic doctrine. What does reason say to you about the sexual relationship of two men? Does one need to be Catholic to recognize the incongruity of it?

Human reason is however frail. It is rarely definitive. Which makes it handy to have the guidance of Scripture and the Church. But we shouldn’t cry foul if we find the two agree.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think my comment re: the difficulty of sincerely accessing conscience is true. I can see it in me from time to time, and I don’t think I’m unique. And I’m not suggesting the difficulty a particular person may face is anybody else’s business. I really don’t know why you responded as you did.

You went from a personal truth about yourself and unjustifiably extrapolated it as a prudential principle through which sincere conscientious dissenters should be viewed. Namely they may not be as sincere as they think.

While it may well be true for you the Church only goes so far as to say that we must sincerely inform ourselves…and indeed some do not make this effort.

It does not as a general principle impugn the ability of dissenters to truly access their conscience, indeed the opposite, we often hear the voice of conscience clearly. The true problem is that this inner voice is not infallible. That is the correct principle the Church teaches re accessing conscience. Hence the widespread possibility of non culpable ignorance whether vincible or invincible.

In short, culpable ignorance is quite different from culpably not accessing the clear voice of conscience.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

My post does not make any of the assumptions you propose. I made no argument - I just explained the meaning of natural law.

The rationale for the teaching on contraception is set out in HV. It’s worth reading.

Human reason does not depend on Catholic doctrine. What does reason say to you about the sexual relationship of two men? Does one need to be Catholic to recognize the incongruity of it?

Human reason is however frail. It is rarely definitive. Which makes it handy to have the guidance of Scripture and the Church. But we shouldn’t cry foul if we find the two agree.

Rau I believe you are missing ARs point.
Reason does not depend on Catholic Doctrine…but HV, for all its reasoning, does.

The majority of Catholics fairly clearly do not agree with HV on the basis of reason.
If they follow HV it’s purely out of obedience due to faith.

I really do not understand why you think anybody is crying foul if the two agree.
If there is any foul it is when they don’t agree and someone sincerely concludes it is unreasonable for them to obey, though they would like to, in their own particular circumstances. I wouldn’t call that a foul though. Just the mess of imperfect life in the face of celestial principles.

I suppose it is possible for a sincere conscience to also judge the Church somehow got its appreciation of Natural Law wrong when it makes blanket moral prohibitions on certain physical activities always and everywhere. Perhaps those prohibitions are only disciplinary not intrinsically immoral.

 

[Rau]

You went from a personal truth about yourself and unjustifiably extrapolated it as a prudential principle through which sincere conscientious dissenters should be viewed. Namely they may not be as sincere as they think."…

In short, culpable ignorance is quite different from culpably not accessing the clear voice of conscience.

I extrapolated nothing Blue, nor did I assert all conscientious dissenters do any wrong. My goodness you read others poorly sometimes. I made a remark about a trap we can fall into - just as you seem to referencing traps in your last sentence.

 

[Rau]

…Reason does not depend on Catholic Doctrine…but HV, for all its reasoning, does.

Correct. But HV is not solely a document of natural law reasoning.

The majority of Catholics fairly clearly do not agree with HV on the basis of reason.
If they follow HV it’s purely out of obedience due to faith.

. While we can be sure most Catholics know the “bottom line” of The Catholic teaching, I would be surprised if 1 in 100 have read HV! A large number of Catholics choose contraception and frankly I have no idea what the distribution their consciences is - there will be a mix of the sincere dissenters, the casual dissenters, the cafeteria club, the reluctant actors, and so on.

I really do not understand why you think anybody is crying foul if the two agree.

The claim seemed to be made that conclusions from natural law considerations only accord with catholic positions because those reasoning from natural law bias their reasoning with knowledge of catholic doctrine. I disagreed with that and cited an example.

 

[Rau]

I extrapolated nothing Blue, nor did I assert all conscientious dissenters do any wrong. My goodness you read others poorly sometimes. I made a remark about a trap we can fall into - just as you seem to be referencing traps in your last sentence.

 

[ArielRussu]

I extrapolated nothing Blue, nor did I assert all conscientious dissenters do any wrong.

Actually, indirectly you do . The Catholic belief is essentially “its our way or the highway, our views are correct and all others that don’t align with our world view are wrong”.

While we can be sure most Catholics know the “bottom line” of The Catholic teaching, I would be surprised if 1 in 100 have read HV! A large number of Catholics choose contraception and frankly I have no idea what the distribution their consciences is - there will be a mix of the sincere dissenters, the casual dissenters, the cafeteria club, the reluctant actors, and so on.

You just reiterated what blue said. Blue said a majority of Catholics do not agree with the Catholic Churches views on sexuality, insinuating that they don’t follow it as well. Then Blue went on the say that “IF” they follow, they only follow out of pure obedience, due to the “church says I have to or I go to Hell” mentality. Your examples of the different types of consciences only confirm Blues first point that most people ignore it.

The claim seemed to be made that conclusions from natural law considerations only accord with catholic positions because those reasoning from natural law bias their reasoning with knowledge of catholic doctrine. I disagreed with that and cited an example.

Yes. You personally disagree with the idea that not all peoples consciences a line with the natural law theory without first be biased by knowledge of the Catholic doctrine. However just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means you choose to turn a blind eye and remain ignorant of that reality.

The rationale for the teaching on contraception is set out in HV. It’s worth reading.

I’m very familiar with Catholic doctrine and the HV rules and rationales for being anti contraception. And I disagree with it and after much prayer, searching and discernment, I know God has no issue with certain contraceptives being used within the context of a marriage either.

The ban on contraception is a part of the Catholic Churchs leaders desire to maintain control over the population. Years ago they had it but is now slipping from there grasp. Now that we are living in an age where more is known about the body, and people are beginning to think and question there beliefs more than ever before, people are in search of faith and spirituality and willing to break away from religious rules and regulations in search of truth instead of blindly accepting what an organization says is truth, the Church has basically lost that power over the people.

So you are free to disagree with the reality that not everyone assumes contraception is a “problem” until they are first informed of Catholic doctrine. It still doesn’t mean it’s not true, it’s just your more comfortable turning a blind eye and believing that, for a challenge to your belief in HV and natural law is a no go! Since well… If my original point was correct Natural Law would be wrong and according to the Catholic Church they themselves can’t be wrong about something, right? For if they are wrong about one teaching, what else are they wrong about?

Human reason does not depend on Catholic doctrine.

Human reason is … frail. It is rarely definitive. Which makes it handy to have the guidance of Scripture and the Church. But we shouldn’t cry foul if we find the two agree.

Natural Law theory is based on the philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason. Thus a concept that human reasoning would result in the same moral concepts as what the church teaches. You contradict yourself and this theory by saying that human reason is frail & requires the church scriptures and rules to guide it.

How on Earth does that not first require a bias of knowledge of Catholic doctrine? When Natural Law theory states that human reasoning will, in the end, results in alignment with Church doctrine? That does not add up!

 

[Rau]

Actually, indirectly you do . The Catholic belief is essentially “its our way or the highway, our views are correct and all others that don’t align with our world view are wrong”.

In other words - you discard what I say, and condemn me “indirectly” because I am Catholic?

You just reiterated what blue said.

No. I point out that not all those who dissent do so on the basis of a sincere attempt to understand what is taught, and to sincerely examine and follow their conscience.

The ban on contraception is a part of the Catholic Churchs leaders desire to maintain control over the population.

Riiightt… Do you have that belief in your mind when you read about Catholic doctrine? - it may tend to bias your assessment a tad. I suspect this belief about how the Church would behave must fundamentally influence your attitude to the Church and to anyone appearing to be a faithful Catholic.

So you are free to disagree with the reality that not everyone assumes contraception is a “problem” until they are first informed of Catholic doctrine.

For the record, I don’t assume that. Did you just make that up?

Natural Law theory is based on the philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason. Thus a concept that human reasoning would result in the same moral concepts as what the church teaches. You contradict yourself and this theory by saying that human reason is frail & requires the church scriptures and rules to guide it.

How on Earth does that not first require a bias of knowledge of Catholic doctrine?

I don’t know whether natural law rationales exist such that they can substitute or “duplicate” everything revealed by God through Scripture and Church teaching - I certainly don’t assume it can. But where right reason can be applied, that there ought (at least in the Catholic opinion) to be alignment does not compel one to bias their reason to make it so. I offered an example earlier - how is any Catholic doctrine needed to enable one to consider, from the natural law perspective, the sexual relationship of 2 men and conclude that it is incongruous?

When Natural Law theory states that human reasoning will, in the end, results in alignment with Church doctrine?

Natural law does not state this.

 

[ArielRussu]

In other words - you discard what I say, and condemn me “indirectly” because I am Catholic?

No. I pointed out that not all those who dissent do so on the basis of a sincere attempt to understand what is taught, and to sincerely examine and follow their conscience.

And they don’t have to make a sincere attempt to understand church doctrine. They can look at it and reject it at face value. It doesn’t matter if they make a sincere attempt to understand them end up rejecting the teaching or they reject it the second they hear it. They are still rejecting church teaching on contraception.

Riiightt… Do you have that belief in your mind when you read about Catholic doctrine? - it may tend to bias your assessment a tad. I suspect this belief about how the Church would behave must fundamentally influence your attitude to the Church and to anyone appearing to be a faithful Catholic.

I was raised Catholic. I have have probably read most arguments out there for and against contraception over two years since I first came across that teaching. I have an obsessive and perfectionistic personality and when I fixate on a topic it consumes most of my every thought 24/7, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and everything I read is related to it until I reach a conclusion. I’ve been on these forums reading about people’s views and arguments, I’ve written my story and argued with people about this topic. I’ve read books and history on contraception and the involvement of the Catholic Church in the history of a contraception. It doesn’t matter how many break downs I suffer through or how much my mind wants to change the subject, I have OCD and until my mind is at ease and reached a conclusion the idea in question will NOT leave me. I am very familiar with HV and Catgolic teachings about contraception and sexuality and why they believe what they do.

I’ve prayed about this for now years, I’ve talked to priests and other religious figures. I’ve cried out to God to help me with finding an answer and he brought me 3 religious figures into my life to tell me the same thing to my questions, and not just about contraception, with no knowledge that another had told me the same as them. And after ALL that emotional HELL 7 days a week, 24/7 for 2 years now, I’ve now convinced that the Catholic view is incorrect. As I’ve read more into Catholicism, I find it, no offense, but very cult like. And I refuse to stay in a cult.

For the record, I don’t assume that. Did you just make that up?

In your post, #167, from which the quote I referenced from from you state;

“The claim seemed to be made that conclusions from natural law considerations only accord with catholic positions because those reasoning from natural law bias their reasoning with knowledge of catholic doctrine. I disagreed with that”

So, yes, you did state that you disagree with the idea that peoples don’t need to have foreknowledge of Catholic doctrine as a bias. In other words by disagreeing you are saying that, people will reach the conclusion, that contraception is “wrong”, on there own. When for myself, several friends and family, it never occurred to us that anything is “wrong” with contracepting until we discovered Catholic doctrines views.

I don’t know whether natural law rationales exist such that they can substitute or “duplicate” everything revealed by God through Scripture and Church teaching - I certainly don’t assume it can. But where right reason can be applied, that there ought (at least in the Catholic opinion) to be alignment does not compel one to bias their reason to make it so. I offered an example earlier - how is any Catholic doctrine needed to enable one to consider, from the natural law perspective, the sexual relationship of 2 men and conclude that it is incongruous?

Two men having sex is strange concept for me to grasp, it’s unnatural. Excuse my language but a vagina and penis are designed to fit like puzzle pieces during sex, not well, how two men use there anatomy, one of which is important to the GI track.

Anyway, using contraception is not comparable, especially when used within a marriage to help prevent a terrible genetic disease from being inherited. It’s actually basic common sense. You can throw the whole, God loves them and they have a purpose at me but that overlooks the point that He gave us a brain to make smart decisions and popping out children who will suffer more than normal and who you know you can’t afford is irresponsible. Plus, your kids may grow up to hate you for playing the odds and giving them life. I have a friend with sickle cells whose parents knew they were carriers but had a child anyway. Let’s say my friend has not talked to there parents in years and harbors a great amount of anger at them for knowing bringing them into the world to suffer so badly.

Natural law does not state this.

It insinuates it then.

 

[Rau]

…And they don’t have to make a sincere attempt to understand church doctrine. They can look at it and reject it at face value. It doesn’t matter if they make a sincere attempt to understand them end up rejecting the teaching or they reject it the second they hear it. They are still rejecting church teaching on contraception.

It matters given what was in discussion at the time - the train of discussion between Blue and me was based on his remarks about the role of conscience.

I’ve prayed about this for now years, I’ve talked to priests and other religious figures. I’ve cried out to God to help me with finding an answer and he brought me 3 religious figures into my life to tell me the same thing to my questions, and not just about contraception, with no knowledge that another had told me the same as them.

How do you offset “3 religious figures” telling you that contraception is OK with all the (Catholic) religious figures who would and have advised otherwise? Do you discard the Catholic religious figures because they are part of the Church’s attempt to “maintain control over the population” (as you declared in post #168).

In your post, #167, from which the quote I referenced from from you state;

“The claim seemed to be made that conclusions from natural law considerations only accord with catholic positions because those reasoning from natural law bias their reasoning with knowledge of catholic doctrine. I disagreed with that”

So, yes, you did state that you disagree with the idea that peoples don’t need to have foreknowledge of Catholic doctrine as a bias. In other words by disagreeing you are saying that, people will reach the conclusion, that contraception is “wrong”, on there own.

No Ariel. You quote me accurately, but what I said does not mean what you state. I am not saying that they WILL reach a certain conclusion - I am saying they can reason logically without applying a bias arising from their Catholic knowledge. I am disputing the idea that Catholic knowledge will bias their (natural law) reasoning.

Two men having sex is strange concept for me to grasp, it’s unnatural. Excuse my language but a vagina and penis are designed to fit like puzzle pieces during sex, not well, how two men use there anatomy, one of which is important to the GI track.

I would agree with the first part of your response, (though I’d suggest the specifics of what the two men do is not so relevant). I’d also observe that the emission of semen inherent to the chosen act, and the nature of semen, would suggest the proper context for the act is man + woman. Neither of us needs to be Catholic to draw these conclusions. And I cannot see any bias in the reasoning arising from the fact that Catholic doctrine finds same sex activity unacceptable. Can you?

Anyway, using contraception is not comparable,

The particular act in question is different - but so what? Your thesis in recent posts has been that natural law reasoning is of no substance and is biased by catholic principles anyway…didn’t we just go through a case where that’s not so?

He gave us a brain to make smart decisions and popping out children who will suffer more than normal and who you know you can’t afford is irresponsible.

Yes, it may well be irresponsible. Noone has argued that an irresponsible course is acceptable - only that there are means to avoid the irresponsible course - some of which are morally acceptable and some of which are not (according to Catholic doctrine).

It insinuates it then.

Review the example above for same sex sexual relations. Catholic doctrine had nothing to do with the reasoning involved.

Ariel - you mention you suffer with OCD. Perhaps it is unwise to persist with this debate?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. I pointed out that not all those who dissent do so on the basis of a sincere attempt to understand what is taught, and to sincerely examine and follow their conscience.

 

[ArielRussu]

ArielRussu;14218743:

This is an interesting point.
It depends what one means by “rejecting.”
There is culpably rejecting an non-culpably rejecting.
Faithful Catholics I suggest would be concerned if they rejected a major teaching culpably as that would suggest it was not done virtuously.

A second consideration is that “rejection” is more about actions than a mere intellectual decision/conviction. Plenty of Catholics likely do what the Church says (and not necessarily for fear of hell but love of the Church regardless of its crazy teachings) even if they scratch their heads re some of the teachings. And they would keep these personal views to themselves.

Others would in certain difficult circumstances feel free to act contrary to Church teaching believing the principle doesnt apply in some circumstances. I would probably be one of those. I do not reject the teaching, I think it amounts to more a blanket Church disciplinary bann than an always and everywhere command of God. I hope that isn’t rejection of the teaching because I dont. I wouldn’t normally try to influence anyone with my personally sincere and constantly re-informing conscience view on the matter. I see CAF as one place where I might re-check the validity of my views on the matter.

Then maybe I better phrasing would be a majority of people choose to ignore the Churches teaching on Contraception because they don’t agree with it? Without necessary rejecting it.

Rau is a good foil for example .

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[Rau]

I’m not sure I understand what you mean.

Blue and I have discussed various issues on many occasions. I think he means by this that we are effective in causing each other to test our own reasoning and ideas.