Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception
- Thread starter Michie
- Start date
- Status
April Angel
Senior Member
- Jul 13, 2007
- 1,043
- 99
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Upvote
0
Filia Mariae
Senior Contributor
No, all people (married or single) are called to chastity. As a single person, chastity precludes sex. Thus, there is no ris of disease or pregnancy.
Contraception is an intrinsic moral evil (See the CCC no. 2370). As such, no set of circumstances can make it not evil.
Upvote
0
Gwendolyn
back in black
Directing one's sex drive doesn't mean suppressing it, like forcing it down into a dark place and stuffing it away in a corner and pretending it doesn't exist... hmm, I am not sure how to explain it, but I believe I have managed to effectively direct it. A priest talked to me about it once, and at first I was honestly like "What do you know, you're old and celibate" - but his words actually rang true to me. Essentially, you acknowledge your sexuality, and you see it for what it is - not something evil, not something scary, not something out of control and wild, but something that God has given you as a way to glorify Him. It's perfectly possible to acknowledge your sex drive and to be comfortable enough with your sexuality to just say, "No, thank you, masturbating isn't something I think I ought to do right now." You take it moment by moment, addressing the urges as they come. Once you stop seeing it as something evil, dirty, untouchable, etc., it's not surprising or insanely tempting. It just is.
It's not as idealistic as you think, I actually feel like it's pretty practical. I think one of the reasons sex and other sex acts are so alluring is because they're so taboo. If people didn't try to hide sexuality and shove it under a rug I honestly don't think people would be going so wild. Making it seem forbidden only makes it more alluring. And finally gaining control over your emotions and urges instead of allowing them to control you is a big step - it is a matter of discipline that resonates in other areas of your life too.
Basically it comes down to realising that there is a time and place for sex... our present culture wants it to be all sex all the time, but that is just overly indulgent and we're bound to grow sick if we gorge ourselves...
There's a healthy way to go about learning self-control and there is an unhealthy one... unfortunately, it is the unhealthy attempts that end up getting all the attention, and people end up treating them like they're the standard experience. I just really believe that there is a healthy way and that it is a fabulous experience rather than an undesirable one...
And D'ann, we're talking about contraception and its effects on the mentality of sexuality! Woo!
Upvote
0
LivingWordUnity
Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
And those who don't have a problem with the teachings of the Catholic Church are not normal people? I don't know if you realize how arrogant that sounds.
Upvote
0
April Angel
Senior Member
- Jul 13, 2007
- 1,043
- 99
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
OK, here is the full text from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the title: "The fecundity of Marriage":
The above text talks about "spouses", "the conjugal act" and "husband and wife". When talking specifically about an intrinsic evil, the text is referring to "the conjugal act".
I think I will take the advice of my English Bishops on this, thank you. Their interpretation in 1989, was that contraception was evil within marriage NOT an additional evil outside marriage.
Sorry, I meant to say "ordinary" as a opposed to "extraordinary".
Upvote
0
April Angel
Senior Member
- Jul 13, 2007
- 1,043
- 99
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Yes, I have a document which was given to me in 1989 when I went on a Young Adult's Pilgrimage to Lourdes led by Cardinal Hume. I will try to scan it into my computer later and post it over to this website.
Upvote
0
Most Catholics seem to have no problem claiming to be Catholic, yet with the sheer numbers of Dogmas they do not subscribe to, in actuality, are about as Catholic as Richard Dawkins.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
April Angel
Senior Member
- Jul 13, 2007
- 1,043
- 99
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Unfortunately, the document which I have from 1989 does not contain the specific talk which was given by Bishop Victor Guazelli on the subject of condom use outside marriage. That particular talk took place during a "question and answer" seminar and so it was not included amongst the sermons which were given by the Bishops during that Pilgrimage.
However, I have found an interesting article from 1996 which confirms Bishop Guazelli's beliefs on the subject of condom use outside marriage.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_/ai_18149357
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Okay thanks a lot... Sorry D'Ann I was just asking things to be clearer to me , sorry again.Nope
I understand what you say and form that perspective you are right, but it doesn't pass the logic that gays are having sex, therefore it doesn't pass the logic to can or can't use a contraception just because in the first place it shouldn't have existed... anyways hope i am able to pass my thoughts
Upvote
0
April Angel
Senior Member
- Jul 13, 2007
- 1,043
- 99
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
However, I have looked up Humanae Vitae and, surprisingly, that document refers to "sexual intercourse" not "the conjugal act".
The following chapter from Humanae Vitae is also very telling:
"Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beingsand especially the young, who are so exposed to temptationneed incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."After reading that, it made me question what the English Bishop had told me in 1989. Perhaps he was wrong to have told me that contraception was not an additional sin outside marriage.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
fated
The White Hart
I have two questions here. Is it necessary to divide the sin of condom use from fornication, so that they be counted "seperately." And, second, if the use of a condom in a fornication scenario, would, then, constitute an equally grave matter?
Anyone got an answer for that?
Upvote
0
faerieevaH
lucky wife
Not reading through the entire thread, but I always find one fallacy in the argument that the Church is responsible for spreading AIDS> The theory is the following: "people obey the Church and do not use condoms when having sex. That is why they get AIDS"
If however people were indeed fully obedient to the Church they would remain virginal until marriage, marry a person they knew well enough to be certain that they could know that they did not have AIDS either. And remain faithful to eachother in one AIDS free little bubble.
Of course then there is the argument: "But what if a woman is being raped?" A man that rapes a woman is probably not one that will be worried enough about her health to put on a condom. His refusal to wear one will not have anything to do with Church teachings.
The AIDS epidemic seems to have much more to do with poverty and a lack of respect for women than it has with the use of condoms, why would it otherwise be much more rampant in underdeveloped nations?
If however people were indeed fully obedient to the Church they would remain virginal until marriage, marry a person they knew well enough to be certain that they could know that they did not have AIDS either. And remain faithful to eachother in one AIDS free little bubble.
Of course then there is the argument: "But what if a woman is being raped?" A man that rapes a woman is probably not one that will be worried enough about her health to put on a condom. His refusal to wear one will not have anything to do with Church teachings.
The AIDS epidemic seems to have much more to do with poverty and a lack of respect for women than it has with the use of condoms, why would it otherwise be much more rampant in underdeveloped nations?
Upvote
0
Filia Mariae
Senior Contributor
I'm not sure what you mean by "necessary." The assertion made by Hyacinth was that the use of contraception in a non-marital relationship is not sinful, only the act of fornication is. I corrected her, pointing out that that which is intrinsically evil (which contraception is) is always sinful, and that the circumstances surrounding the act cannot make it good, or even neutral.
Essentially, there are only two categories of actual sin: venial and mortal. Contraception is (objectively) a mortal sin. Whether or not one is subjectively culpable for it is another matter, but objectively, yes it is grave matter. Some sins we may find more repugnant than others, etc. but I don't know that you can talk about it being "more grave" or "less grave" within the larger category of grave sin.
Upvote
0
fated
The White Hart
There are a hole list of actual sins types, that result from the complexity of actions, especially because some things can be prevented and so forth, you get into this more especially when dealing with government... like "unintentional material consent". I believe that condom uses is a lesser violation than the fornication, but still falls within the mortal category.
Unlike the pill, a condom doesn't endanger the life of a child, it simply prevents full completion of the act. The condom, however, is inherently evil, because it provides a temptation, to engage in behavior with risks. I would think the wait of the sins would be similar... or we conclude that it is one sin, decide it is similar to sodomy and conclude that the condom use results in a grave sin.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Filia Mariae
Senior Contributor
I think you're a bit confused- there are many factors that would affect one's culpability for any given sin, including situation and motivation, but not different categories of gravity (outside venial and mortal).
No, it's evil because it is antithetical to the nature of the meaning of sexuality.
Sorry, I can't understand what you're trying to say here.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
