Why don't Catholics look to ban contraception?

[fix]

That’s because once laws are on the books, they are difficult to get off. Take a liberal state like NY. Adultery is illegal. However, it’s just ignored. Once in a blue moon someone brings up the charge as, say, part of a divorce, but of course it gets dropped.

Yes, but the USA was never a theocracy. BTW, the adultery law in NYS was used last year against a couple who were engaging in sex in a public park near children.

Blues laws pertaining to alcohol were on the books for hundreds of years in NY, originally for religious reasons, and it was only within the past decade that they were finally dumped. It’s stunning that they remained on the book for that long, given the liberalness and activism in that state.

Sure, but again there was no theocracy in NYS. The laws were there and no one forced anyone to go to mass on Sunday or worship in a Temple or anything else.

There are also tons of other regulations that were never taken off the books, but simply became unenforceable by some other effect of law. My favorite is a deed restriction on one of my friend’s properties, placed there during the Civil War, stating the property owners cannot “harbor Tories.” Still in place after hundreds of years…obviously unenforceable.

Striking down these old laws can lead to real trouble:

Once again, you have to be careful with government involvement in legislating behavior. In the U.S., you will not get the Catholic perspective; you will get the Protestant one. That’s effectively what you have now. I rather have the government stay out of such things, otherwise you end up with laws basically imposed immorality on the religious belief system of others.

I do not like that argument at all. The idea that the governemnt must not protect society because it may make a bad decision is no reason to have no protection at all.

In fact, JPII explicitly taught that a democracy not infused with proper morality is a tyranny. That is where we are going quickly.

 

[fix]

Yes, but those things were still banned due to Christianity. Besides, you can’t claim we should ban something now because it was banned in the past. As I said on a different thread, America has never been a Christian theocracy because it was founded as a secular nation. Despite this, though, there are some Christians who believe it should be a theocracy, and try to sneak their religious laws into the system. I’ve heard Christians claim that every school should be a faith school, for example.

I am pointing out that the things we are discussing were illegal and no theocracy existed. Christmas is a federal holiday yet we are not a theocracy.

But it may as well have been. Despite America being founded as a secular nation, as I said, there have been all kinds of people that believe America should be a theocracy, and there still are quite a few politicians who claim that America is a Christian nation.

It can be a Christian nation without being a theocracy.

I think it’s a shame that people would use that to legalise abortion, but contraception and abortion aren’t the same thing. It’s important to remember that. It’s absurd to claim that contraception should be illegal to prevent abortion like it is to claim that sodomy laws should be put in place to prevent same-sex marriage.

They are all tied together.

 

[TimeEntrance]

(b) mother carries to term; mate receives no negative consequences whatsoever (not to his career, not to his finances, etc.; in fact, most often he is allowed to remain “anonymous” or at least invisible, carrying no legal responsibility for the child’s upbringing, nor moral responsibility in the eyes of society; after all it was “her decision” to risk pregnancy --hmm, not his as well and after all it was “her choice” to carry to term and join the ranks of the millions of other single mothers, many of whom became that way in the exact same fashion – not by divorce or death of spouse)

We have millions of voluntarily single mothers in this country, who were never married and who bear no stigma from engaging in sex outside of marriage, and being irresponsible enough to sleep with men who had no intention of marrying them.

From my stand point I don’t think single mothers should carry a stigma.

But my perspective is that single mothers have become the secular world’s equivalent image of the Virgin Mary. Being a single mother is elevated to something sacred.

To me that’s what gives single motherhood something of a socially persuasive power.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I am pointing out that the things we are discussing were illegal and no theocracy existed. Christmas is a federal holiday yet we are not a theocracy.

Like I said, they were still illegal due to Christianity. If the motives behind something are almost purely religious, how can it be justified when you live in a culture that isn’t purely religious?

It can be a Christian nation without being a theocracy.

Possibly. But it’s not a Christian nation, either. It’s a secular nation.

They are all tied together.

They don’t have to be. Abortion could still be illegal, and contraception could be legal. Really, banning contraception is just absurd.

 

[ringil]

Contraception is intrinsically evil according to Catholicism. So why don’t Catholics look to ban it? They think that gay marriage should be outlawed, so why not contraception? Why the double standard?

We don’t live in a theocracy.

My personal preference is the “Civil Unions” become the standard of law and “marriage” the specific parlance of religious organizations.

I am very agains Gay Marriage but I really don’t care about “Civil Unions”. I do realize that the Church is also against Civil Union, however.

 

[fix]

But my perspective is that single mothers have become the secular world’s equivalent image of the Virgin Mary. Being a single mother is elevated to something sacred.

Just to point out for clarity sake the BVM was never a single mother. She was married.

 

[ValPal]

Yes, but the USA was never a theocracy. BTW, the adultery law in NYS was used last year against a couple who were engaging in sex in a public park near children.

That’s true (in 2010)…the 13th charge since 1907. I don’t know what the final outcome was, since these charges are typically pleaded down. If the person charged wanted to fight it, it is likely that it would be overturned.

I do not like that argument at all. The idea that the governemnt must not protect society because it may make a bad decision is no reason to have no protection at all.

Catholics are not a majority in the U.S. The imposition of religious-based principles will certainly not be the principles of the minority in the current atmosphere. If you want the government to get involved, you will have Protestant principles as part of law, not Catholic ones. That’s what Catholics are faced with here.

The thread is about contraception. If you want contraception in the law, it will be in the affirmative, not the negative.

 

[Elizabeth502]

From my stand point I don’t think single mothers should carry a stigma.

But my perspective is that single mothers have become the secular world’s equivalent image of the Virgin Mary. Being a single mother is elevated to something sacred.

To me that’s what gives single motherhood something of a socially persuasive power.

I could not disagree more. The BVM is a unique person and phenomenon, and technically could even be called not “single,” as her spouse IS the Holy Spirit, God.

Mary did not go choose some random human guy, sleep with him irresponsibly (kniowing that he had no intention of marrying her), and then “celebrate” single motherhood. She accepted the Divine Will for her future. She is not a model for other single mothers, because she did not seek either a sexual experience or an experience of single motherhood. That is the opposite of the social situation I described.

What should be stigmatized is deliberate sex outside of marriage, for both the male and the female. What should also be stigmatized is irresponsibility and rationalization.

It is not glorious to choose (initiate) biological single motherhood. Such a deliberate choice is most likely to consign that child to a life without a father. (And every woman makes such a choice when she agrees to engage in fornication.) Such decision-making opposes Catholic principles on the priority of marriage and family, and sex only within that context.

 

[fix]

Just to point out for clarity sake the BVM was never a single mother. She was married.

To be even more clear this is from JPII:

At this point Luke’s text coincides with Matthew 1:18 and serves to explain what we read there. If, after her marriage to Joseph, Mary is found to be with child of the Holy Spirit," this fact corresponds to all that the Annunciation means, in particular to Mary’s final words: “Let it be to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). In response to what is clearly the plan of God, with the passing of days and weeks Mary’s “pregnancy” is visible to the people and to Joseph; she appears before them as one who must give birth and carry within herself the mystery of motherhood.

 

[fix]

Catholics are not a majority in the U.S. The imposition of religious-based principles will certainly not be the principles of the minority in the current atmosphere. If you want the government to get involved, you will have Protestant principles as part of law, not Catholic ones. That’s what Catholics are faced with here.

The thread is about contraception. If you want contraception in the law, it will be in the affirmative, not the negative.

It is not about imposing the Catholic faith. It is about Catholics living their faith including Judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and voters.

 

[ValPal]

It is not about imposing the Catholic faith. It is about Catholics living their faith including Judges, lawyers, lawmakers, and voters.

We can certainly agree on this. This is, in fact, what faithful Catholics already do.

The problem arises when the “ban on contraception” is implemented into law. Not all Christian religions agree on this matter, and others religions certainly don’t, so a ban on contraception can impose on others religious beliefs. IMHO, this is a matter best left out of the law.

This is entirely different than abortion, where this is significant common ground amongst all of the major religions.

 

[JimG]

I could not disagree more. The BVM is a unique person and phenomenon, and technically could even be called not “single,” as her spouse IS the Holy Spirit, God.

Mary did not go choose some random human guy, sleep with him irresponsibly (kniowing that he had no intention of marrying her), and then “celebrate” single motherhood. She accepted the Divine Will for her future. She is not a model for other single mothers, because she did not seek either a sexual experience or an experience of single motherhood. That is the opposite of the social situation I described.

What should be stigmatized is deliberate sex outside of marriage, for both the male and the female. What should also be stigmatized is irresponsibility and rationalization.

It is not glorious to choose (initiate) biological single motherhood. Such a deliberate choice is most likely to consign that child to a life without a father. (And every woman makes such a choice when she agrees to engage in fornication.) Such decision-making opposes Catholic principles on the priority of marriage and family, and sex only within that context.

Yes, I agree that engaging in sex outside of marriage ought to be stigmatized for both parties.

Persons who engage in sex outside of marriage make the decision beforehand that any child conceived, will be either aborted or wil have no intact family, unless they have a good adoption agency in mind beforehand.

And when women choose to raise a child on their own without a father, they often make a choice to turn its grandparents into the parties responsible for its upbringing.

 

[Bradski]

It can be a Christian nation without being a theocracy.

Can you tell me what the difference would likely be?

 

[Nate13]

Can you tell me what the difference would likely be?

Its a Christian nation because its made up of mostly Christians who vote based on their morals. I suggest you read up on the Church’s teaching on scandal:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM

Supporting laws which will directly lead or encourage others to do what we believe is evil would be to go against our consciences.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Possibly. But it’s not a Christian nation, either. It’s a secular nation.

Wrong As Pew Surveys have shown consistently the Christian, Jewish, and many are faiths are growing especially Christianity
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004QX0750

QUOTE=Regular Atheist;9821598]

They don’t have to be. Abortion could still be illegal, and contraception could be legal. Really, banning contraception is just absurd.

You seem like an intelligent person

And your are quite magnanimous sometimes but what you don’t understand Is this it is imperative that contraception has to be removed from society

• insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2012/07/contraception-in-the-united-states-a-short-history.html

And if you even read a chapter in the book ten universal principles by Robert spitzer it is possible that you’re apparent oversight is lifted ( unless you are blinder than I certainly was which seems impossible since I am a sinner and God has been too merciful to me )

• ignatius.com/Products/TUP-P/ten-universal-principles.aspx

Shalom
God bless you’re journey

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Wrong As Pew Surveys have shown consistently the Christian, Jewish, and many are faiths are growing especially Christianity

Secularism has nothing to do with the beliefs of a country’s citizens, but instead with the idea that a government should not endorse as policy one or more religious beliefs over another. Even a nation where every single person in it is religious can still be secular.

 

[Elizium23]

Secularism has nothing to do with the beliefs of a country’s citizens, but instead with the idea that a government should not endorse as policy one or more religious beliefs over another. Even a nation where every single person in it is religious can still be secular.

Secularism is a religion in itself, evangelized by liberals and promoting things such as environmentalism, abortion on demand, unfettered artificial contraception, acceptance of homosexuality, anthropogenic global warming (all of which are under the umbrella of a population control agenda)

If people of true faith do not bow to the God of Secularism and accept His Commandments, they are ostracized and marginalized by those of the Secularist Faith, such as those at the Democratic National Convention who booed God in the party platform.

The tenets of Secularism deny that one can be both a patriot and a person of faith. The principle of non-establishment is expanded to a “wall of separation” between Church and State, and every expression of faith and God in a governmental or state-sponsored context is eliminated. Likewise, every appearance of participation by the Church and the faithful in politics is to be avoided and discouraged.

Secularism, like Marxism and Communism, views religion as a dangerous menace to effective government of the people, and seeks to discard its influence by replacing its instruments such as faith-based charities with government run programs such as Social Security and Welfare.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Secularism is a religion in itself, evangelized by liberals and promoting things such as environmentalism, abortion on demand, unfettered artificial contraception, acceptance of homosexuality, anthropogenic global warming (all of which are under the umbrella of a population control agenda)

If people of true faith do not bow to the God of Secularism and accept His Commandments, they are ostracized and marginalized by those of the Secularist Faith, such as those at the Democratic National Convention who booed God in the party platform.

The tenets of Secularism deny that one can be both a patriot and a person of faith. The principle of non-establishment is expanded to a “wall of separation” between Church and State, and every expression of faith and God in a governmental or state-sponsored context is eliminated. Likewise, every appearance of participation by the Church and the faithful in politics is to be avoided and discouraged.

Secularism, like Marxism and Communism, views religion as a dangerous menace to effective government of the people, and seeks to discard its influence by replacing its instruments such as faith-based charities with government run programs such as Social Security and Welfare.

^

Shalom
God bless

 

[1ke]

i am shocked that it took 6 page of responses before 1 person pointed out that contraception was illegal in the US (until Griswold v Conneticut in the 1960s).

Are we really that disconnected from our own history as a country and a church? The entire question of “why doesn’t the Church try to ban contraception” stems from not knowing that it was banned, and that the supreme court invented the “right to privacy” in that ruling-- which also gave us abortion and the eventual overturning of sodomy laws too, and that the Church cannot do anything short of getting a constitutional ammendment passed to change it.

This entire premise of a question seems to be based on the idea that the Church is somehow being hypocritical. I suggest it is instead a lack of knowledge of history that would lead to such a question in the first place.

 

[ValPal]

i am shocked that it took 6 page of responses before 1 person pointed out that contraception was illegal in the US (until Griswold v Conneticut in the 1960s).

I had to look this is up, simply because it was inconsistent with certain family history I am aware of.

Contraception was not illegal in the U.S., and that title of your reference actually demonstrates it. It was illegal in Connecticut. This was a state issue. Contraception was legal in other states.