Contraception

[Cobalt Blue]

This thread is split off of this one: http://www.christianforums.com/t729483

We were talking about the Catholic church's position on contraception. I stated that I did not understand the reasoning behind it. Lokinson01 stated:

Originally posted by: Lokison01
Well does making yourself throw up have the exact same value as not eating the food in the first place, both just as good or preferable as the other?

I would say that making yourself throw up is an abuse of your digestive system, and I would say the same thing goes for contraceptives.

Look at the sexual arena since 1950.

Now that we have sex without the responsibility of pregnancy, is sex better? Do men have more or less respect for women today than 50 years ago? Are we as a culture more or less obsessed with sex today?

The Pill is an abomination and an abuse of the womans reproductive system, IMO, and I think the RCC's as well.

Your analogy does not really fit, because while there are no negative physical effects (that I know of) associated with condom use, there are many associated with habitual vomiting (for example, the acid corrodes your teeth and damages your gums). In fact, what you describe is an eating disorder known as bulemia. There may be some minor side effects caused by using the pill in some people, but not enough to justify calling it an "abomiation" or "abuse of the woman's reproductive system".

Also, I challenge you to prove (or at least provide some evidence for) the cause effect relationship you seem to claim exists between the use of birth control and men being obsessed with sex and having lower opinions of women.

Anyway, I would say men have the same amount, if not more respect for women these days compared to the 1950's, largely due the women's rights movement.

 

[Filia Mariae]

All,

I am in the middle of composing a post that explains the Church's teaching on this matter fully. I would be very appreciative if you would allow me to explain the teaching first before arguing against it, because people often argue against things which the Church doesn't even teach in the first place and the discussion will be far more efficient if the teaching is first laid out in its entirety.

Thank you.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Sure thing carly, I was just responding to the argument Lokinson01 posted in the other thread.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Shoot! I accidentally posted my response in a separate thread. let me move it over here and ask the mods to close that thread.

 

[Filia Mariae]

In another thread, Cobalt asked this question:

I never understood what the Catholic Church's problem with contraception was, even when I was Catholic. I read that little explanation from the link posted before, but i still don't get it. What is the difference between having sex at a certain time so as not to have children, and having sex with a condom so as not to have children? They both accomplish the same thing, except that the second option allows for alot more sex, which is a good thing IMHO

Cobalt,

Although I understand you are an atheist, the answer to your question necessarily draws upon reference to God to and God's plan for human sexuality because it is a matter of religious doctrine. Therefore, the moral arguments against contraception are based upon an assumption of God's existence and the Christian concept of a loving Triune God. I know you don't accept those assumptions, but since I am explaining the Catholic position, I ask you to accept them only for the purposes of this explanation. Sound reasonable?

Okee-dokey.

First, since many people do not even understand what is actually Catholic teaching in the first place, let's clarify (briefly) the Catholic position on sexuality in general and contraception in specfic.

Many people wrongly believe that Catholic teaching says sex is bad. This is NOT true!!! Catholics believe sex is very good because it is a human image of the kind of total self-giving love Christ has for His Church.

Many people also believe that Catholics believe contraception is wrong because sex is only for babies. This is NOT true!!! Catholics believe there are two purposes of sex:
1. Procreation
2. Unitive intimacy

Catholics believe that all sex acts must remain open to both purposes.

The Church realizes that most people simply cannot raise and support as many children as they are biologically capable of creating. Family planning is not forbidden.

A family can licitly choose to space the births of their children for a number of reasons. Potential reasons are: we cannot reasonably afford another child right now, I have serious health problems that would be complicated by pregnancy, or we have several small children and I cannot care for another one right now. Illicit reasons for spacing children are: I would like to buy a vacation home, I would like to pay off my car faster, It is weird to have more than three kids, Kids are too much work and I don't want to be up all night with a baby any more, etc.

However, a family cannot licitly choose to space these births in any way they want. You originally asked how it was different to use NFP than artificial contraceptives. Let me offer an analogy:

Two men wish to support their families. One robs a bank. The other one gets a job. What is the difference, they both accomplish the same thing, right? In this instance, its easy to see why a similar outcome does not justify vastly different means. The response (I anticipate) will be the robbing a bank is illegal. But legality does not establish moral licitness. It establishes only civil licitness, which is not at issue here. The other response will be that robbing a bank hurts someone, while contraception (allegedly) does not. I submit to you that contraception does in fact hurt someone because it robs man of his God given dignity, as he acts no longer in the image and likeness of God.

I will be quoting extensively from Christopher West's website since he is far more eloquent than I.

“Love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). These words of Christ sum up the meaning of life. Yet how did Christ love us? “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19). God’s love – an eternal, spiritual reality – is made flesh in Jesus Christ. In other words, Christ’s love is an incarnate reality and we’re called to love in the very same way – with the unreserved gift of our bodies.

Man and woman express this bodily gift in numerous ways. But, as the Holy Father states, this gift “becomes most evident when spouses ...bring about that encounter which makes them ‘one flesh.’”[3] And St. Paul describes this union in “one flesh” as “a great mystery” that in some way images, proclaims, and foreshadows the union of Christ and the Church (see Eph 5:31-32).

No higher dignity and honor could be bestowed on our sexuality. God created us male and female and called us to “be fruitful and multiply” as a sign of his own mystery of life-giving love in the world. Yet, if we are to embrace this grand, sacramental vision of our sexuality, we must also embrace the responsibility that comes with it.

In other words, Christ describes His relationship to the Church as one of bride and bridegroom. Christ gave Himself completely to His beloved, not holding anything back. The sexual act allows man to participate in the inner life of God. The question is, are we allowing this participation to really image the kind of love God has for us?

In order to be “true to the sign,” spouses must speak as Christ speaks. Christ gives his body freely (“No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord,” Jn 10:18). He gives his body without reservation (“he loved them to the last,” Jn 13:1). He gives his body faithfully (“I am with you always,” Mt 28:20). And he gives his body fruitfully (“I came that they may have life,” Jn 10:10).

This is the love a couple commits to in marriage. Standing at the altar, the priest or deacon asks them: “Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? Do you promise to be faithful until death? Do you promise to receive children lovingly from God?” Then, having committed to loving as Christ loves, the couple is meant to incarnate that love in sexual intercourse. In other words, sexual union is meant to be where the words of the wedding vows “become flesh.”

How healthy would a marriage be if spouses, rather than incarnating their vows, were regularly unfaithful to them, regularly speaking against them? Herein lies the essential evil of contracepted intercourse. The desire to avoid a pregnancy (when there is sufficient reason to do so) is not what vitiates the spouses’ behavior. What vitiates contracepted sex is the specific choice to render sterile a potentially fertile union. This changes the sign of divine love into a “counter-sign.”

Divine love is generous; it generates. And, to put it plainly, this is why God gave us genitals – to enable spouses to image in their bodies (to “incarnate”) an earthly version of his own free, total, faithful, fruitful love. When spouses contracept – that is, when they willfully defraud their union of its procreative potential – they become “false prophets.” Their sexual act still “speaks,” but it denies the life-giving love of God.

But why do we have to show this total self-giving with our bodies? Can't I give my self freely to my spouse even if I withhold some bodily fluid? Isn't that ridiculous legalism?

“To think that constraining the free flow of body fluids impedes me from loving my wife is ludicrous.” This sentiment – once angrily expressed in a letter I received – typifies the “dis-incarnate” view of love used to justify contraception. For this man, love is not revealed in the body (and its fluids), but is something purely spiritual.

St. John’s admonition comes to mind: Beware of those “false prophets” who deny the incarnation (see 1 Jn 4:1-3). Make no mistake – taken to its logical conclusions, contraception implies the acceptance of a world-view antithetical to the mystery of Incarnate Love, that is, to the mystery of Christ.

Applying the same “dis-incarnate” view of love to Christ, what are we to make of Christ’s blood shed for us on the cross and given as drink in the Eucharist? Is this “free flowing body fluid” not the definitive accomplishment of Christ’s spiritual love for his Bride? If Christ had withheld his blood in a mock crucifixion, would this have sufficed? “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hb 9:22). Similarly, without the giving of the seed, there is no conjugal act. The spirit is expressed in and through the body (and, yes, the body’s fluids). It can be no other way for us as incarnate persons. John Paul II explains: “As an incarnate spirit, that is a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.”[6]

If contracepted intercourse claims to express love for the other person, it can only be a dis-embodied person. It is not a love for the other person in the God-ordained unity of body and soul. In this way, by attacking the procreative potential of the sexual act, contracepted intercourse “ceases also to be an act of love.”[7]

So, am I just supposed to have as many kids as my body can conceive?

Pope Paul VI stated clearly that those are considered “to exercise responsible parenthood who prudently and generously decide to have a large family, or who, for serious reasons and with due respect to the moral law, choose to have no more children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period.”[8] Notice that large families should result from prudent reflection, not “chance.” Notice that a couple must have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy and must respect the moral law.

Assuming a couple has a serious reason to avoid a child, what could they do that would not violate the “ethics of the sign”? In other words, what could they do to avoid a child that would not render them unfaithful to their wedding vows? I’m sure everyone reading this article is doing it right now. They could abstain from sex. The Church has always taught, teaches now, and always will teach that the only method of “birth control” that respects the language of divine love is “self-control.”

A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they embraced knowing they were naturally infertile? Take a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating “the sign” if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting? No. Neither are couples who use NFP to avoid a child. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. (For uneducated readers, I should add that modern methods of NFP are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”)

People will often retort, “C’mon! That’s splitting hairs! What’s the big difference between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? End result’s the same thing.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? End result’s the same thing. One, however, is an “act of God.” In the other man takes the powers of life into his own hands and makes himself like God (see Gn 3:5).

The difference, as we’ve already quoted John Paul saying, “is much wider and deeper than is usually thought.” Indeed, the difference is cosmic. NFP enables a couple to maintain respect for incarnate love. Such respect is the very raison d’etre of NFP. Contraception “dis-incarnates” love and, by doing so, “strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.”[9]

So, under what circumstances can I use NFP?

So what constitutes a “serious reason” for avoiding a child? Here’s where the discussion typically gets heated. Correct thinking (ortho-doxy) on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.

An example of one such error is the “hyper-pious” notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church. As Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II’s pre-papal name) observed, in some cases “increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty.”[10] Therefore, as he also affirmed, avoiding children “in certain circumstances may be permissible or even obligatory.”[11]

We are certainly to trust in God’s providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth if we are to avoid the error of a certain “providentialism.” When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (see Lk 4:9-12).

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple “who prudently and generously decide to have a large family,”[12] are practicing responsible parenthood.

I realize all these explanations rest on an assumption of the loving Christian God, and thus will not be convincing to someone who does believe in the existence of that God. However, the explanation of Catholic belief must rest on such as assumption since this belief is foundational to all Catholic teaching.

Peace,
Carly

 

[InnerPhyre]

*Looks over Carly's shoulder* Things seem calm so far

 

[Filia Mariae]

*Looks over Carly's shoulder* Things seem calm so far

Ever heard the phrase, "Calm before the storm"?

 

[InnerPhyre]

*gets umbrella*

 

[Cobalt Blue]

Thank you for your response Carly

You did exactly what I asked you to, explain the Catholic church's reasoning behind their prohibition on contraception. Honestly, I don't have much of a rebuttle because your position (and that of the catholic church) seems to be purely religious in nature. Those are your beliefs, and you are entitled to them. I will try however, to make a couple points based on my limited knowledge of the Bible and Catholic tradition. You posted a lot of material so I will only respond to a few of the things that stuck out to me, at least for now

First of all, I don't think that whole concept of "incarnate love", which I am having trouble fully understanding, necessarily follows from the bible quotes given. In fact I think using those passages to support the idea that sexual intercourse must involve the man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in the woman is absurd. That whole "Christ's union with the church" thing doesn't really work because I asssume that will not involve any exchange of bodily fluids . But that is, of course only my opinion. The trouble is that you can't really know anything for sure with this kind of argument, as scripture is always open to different interpretations. Whose interpretation is correct? Obviously you believe the Catholic Church's is, but why?

Anyway, I have read the vast majority of the Bible (I admit to skimming some of the more droning old testament books) and never did I see a passage that would lead me to believe that contraception is wrong. I disagree with the ones cited in you quotes, but feel free to post some more. I also realize that the Catholic Church does not rely solely on the bible for guidance, and to that I can only say that church leaders have been mistaken about things in the past (whole heliocentrism ordeal) and this could be one of them.

However, a family cannot licitly choose to space these births in any way they want. You originally asked how it was different to use NFP than artificial contraceptives. Let me offer an analogy:

Two men wish to support their families. One robs a bank. The other one gets a job. What is the difference, they both accomplish the same thing, right? In this instance, its easy to see why a similar outcome does not justify vastly different means. The response (I anticipate) will be the robbing a bank is illegal. But legality does not establish moral licitness. It establishes only civil licitness, which is not at issue here. The other response will be that robbing a bank hurts someone, while contraception (allegedly) does not. I submit to you that contraception does in fact hurt someone because it robs man of his God given dignity, as he acts no longer in the image and likeness of God.

It seems that the argument by bad analogy is very popular in these kind of debates. Can you give any scriptural or empirical evidence that contraception "robs man of his God given dignity, as he acts no longer in the image and likeness of God."?
Well, there is isn't really much else of substance I can say for now, given the nature of your arguments, so I eagerly await your reply

 

[Cobalt Blue]

One thing I forgot to ask, can anyone think of a good non-religious argument against contraception? I think that would make for a more interesting debate. I can think of many secular arguments for contraception, it is a good way to fight poverty, overpoulation, and of course, it alows people who don't want to have children (and some people really shoudn't imo) to enjoy sexual intimacy.

 

[praying]

In another thread, Cobalt asked this question:

Cobalt,

Although I understand you are an atheist, the answer to your question necessarily draws upon reference to God to and God's plan for human sexuality because it is a matter of religious doctrine. Therefore, the moral arguments against contraception are based upon an assumption of God's existence and the Christian concept of a loving Triune God. I know you don't accept those assumptions, but since I am explaining the Catholic position, I ask you to accept them only for the purposes of this explanation. Sound reasonable?

Okee-dokey.

First, since many people do not even understand what is actually Catholic teaching in the first place, let's clarify (briefly) the Catholic position on sexuality in general and contraception in specfic.

Many people wrongly believe that Catholic teaching says sex is bad. This is NOT true!!! Catholics believe sex is very good because it is a human image of the kind of total self-giving love Christ has for His Church.

Many people also believe that Catholics believe contraception is wrong because sex is only for babies. This is NOT true!!! Catholics believe there are two purposes of sex:
1. Procreation
2. Unitive intimacy

Catholics believe that all sex acts must remain open to both purposes.

The Church realizes that most people simply cannot raise and support as many children as they are biologically capable of creating. Family planning is not forbidden.

A family can licitly choose to space the births of their children for a number of reasons. Potential reasons are: we cannot reasonably afford another child right now, I have serious health problems that would be complicated by pregnancy, or we have several small children and I cannot care for another one right now. Illicit reasons for spacing children are: I would like to buy a vacation home, I would like to pay off my car faster, It is weird to have more than three kids, Kids are too much work and I don't want to be up all night with a baby any more, etc.

However, a family cannot licitly choose to space these births in any way they want. You originally asked how it was different to use NFP than artificial contraceptives. Let me offer an analogy:

Two men wish to support their families. One robs a bank. The other one gets a job. What is the difference, they both accomplish the same thing, right? In this instance, its easy to see why a similar outcome does not justify vastly different means. The response (I anticipate) will be the robbing a bank is illegal. But legality does not establish moral licitness. It establishes only civil licitness, which is not at issue here. The other response will be that robbing a bank hurts someone, while contraception (allegedly) does not. I submit to you that contraception does in fact hurt someone because it robs man of his God given dignity, as he acts no longer in the image and likeness of God.

I will be quoting extensively from Christopher West's website since he is far more eloquent than I.



In other words, Christ describes His relationship to the Church as one of bride and bridegroom. Christ gave Himself completely to His beloved, not holding anything back. The sexual act allows man to participate in the inner life of God. The question is, are we allowing this participation to really image the kind of love God has for us?


But why do we have to show this total self-giving with our bodies? Can't I give my self freely to my spouse even if I withhold some bodily fluid? Isn't that ridiculous legalism?


So, am I just supposed to have as many kids as my body can conceive?

So, under what circumstances can I use NFP?


I realize all these explanations rest on an assumption of the loving Christian God, and thus will not be convincing to someone who does believe in the existence of that God. However, the explanation of Catholic belief must rest on such as assumption since this belief is foundational to all Catholic teaching.

Peace,
Carly

Thanks Carly that was quite interesting. Now another question my husband and I have 2 children and then he had a vasectomy I guess that is out. We could have afforded more but felt two was enough. Is it okay to have x number of kids and then stop or if for instance you are the Rockefellors then is the sky the limit. And what about the idea of the population explosion.

 

[Eucharista]

the western world is not replacing itself.


You can fit every single family and human being on this earth inside of the state of texas with a two story house and a small front and back yard. fact.


fallacy- the world is over populated.

The fatc is, that sin nature is making it difficult for people in certain countries to survive. There is no population explosion and never will be. God knows everyone before they are born and will care for them as long as we cooperate with Him.


NFP is not a license to either have as many children as possible, nor is it to stop from having any kids at all.

It still leaves the option open at all times.

Contraception puts an actual barricade between God and your marriage act. NFP never does this. Nfp even gives you a week or two of chstity from sexual relations in marriage every month. It is like having a honey moon every month and it is beautiful.


In your statement, you FELT two was enough.

Where was God in this decision? What did He WILL. it is not what you FELL that matters, it is what is Gods will?

God is the one who will take care of you no matter how many chioldren you have, it is promised that He will take care of our needs as long as we work and do our part. The man who does not work does not eat.


The only reason contraception is here is for sex on demand and the denagration of women and men and it is the number one cause of abortion rights now in america because we have minmized the omportance and sacredness of the conjugal act of love in marriage. It is also the source of homosexual rights since we are seeing divorce at the highest rate ever due to contraceptive mentalities and abortion and all of this belittling of the covenant of marriage and the marriage act are pouring fuel into the world and demoralizing it, little by little.


but what do I know?

 

[praying]

Well I am no expert on population explosion but I have my doubts on fitting everyone in the world in Texas, unless we lived like sardines in a can

Where was God in our decision about the kids, well actually he wasn't which in and of itself is not a good thing but we are not Catholic. I also had some medical issues that my husband had a rough time dealing with but I could have probably had another child safely.

You did not address the ? though of if you can afford and there are no other reasons I guess the woman is just suppose to have kids until she can't. Having children is quite the strain on a woman's body even when everything goes perfectly.

So NFP (which stands for?) is basically the rythym method yes I know not my grandma's method. What do you mean about the two weeks I assume during the month, are you saying you are not sexually active during that time?

How does oral sex come into play in this? Is oral sex no okay in Catholic doctirne.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

You can fit every single family and human being on this earth inside of the state of texas with a two story house and a small front and back yard. fact.

Got any evidence to back up this "fact"?

Contraception puts an actual barricade between God and your marriage act. NFP never does this.

Explain how not having children by wearing a condom does this and not having children by abstaining from sex doesn't. And I doubt every couple would agree that going for weeks at a time without sex every month is "beautiful".

The only reason contraception is here is for sex on demand and the denagration of women and men and it is the number one cause of abortion rights now in america because we have minmized the omportance and sacredness of the conjugal act of love in marriage. It is also the source of homosexual rights since we are seeing divorce at the highest rate ever due to contraceptive mentalities and abortion and all of this belittling of the covenant of marriage and the marriage act are pouring fuel into the world and demoralizing it, little by little.

Can you back up any of these wild claims with evidence? And why the heck would homosexuals need contraception?! How does being free to have sex without having children denegrate women?!

 

[Magisterium]

This thread is split off of this one: http://www.christianforums.com/t729483

We were talking about the Catholic church's position on contraception. I stated that I did not understand the reasoning behind it...

Also, I challenge you to prove (or at least provide some evidence for) the cause effect relationship you seem to claim exists between the use of birth control and men being obsessed with sex and having lower opinions of women.

Anyway, I would say men have the same amount, if not more respect for women these days compared to the 1950's, largely due the women's rights movement.

Well, first of all, let me explain as succinctly as possible the reason behind the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception. The Church understands the marital act to be sacred in nature. According to the church's understanding, in the marital act, human beings participate directly with God in the creation of more human beings. It is always untimately God who decides if new life will result from any given marital act. For this reason, when spouses engage in it, they, in physical and spiritual union with one another, call upon God to bless their marraige. While new life is considered to be the highest blessing the act can produce, there are also the graces of spiritual communion between spouses and obvious physical graces.

The Church uinderstands artificial contraception to be the effective desecration of the marital act. As you probably know, to desecrate is to take something sacred in nature and strip it of it's sanctity, or to profane it. Theologically speaking, by intentionally closing the marital act to life, one effectively expresses to God that that they intend to utilize the marital act for it's physical (or even unitive) benefits, but are not interested or willing to participate in it's higher, sacred purpose.

As for the correlations between contraception and men's view of women, it's actually quite visible in our society. The first of the indicators is the uncomfortable correlation between widespread use of contraception and the increase in divorce and single parenthood. Once the marital act rendered infecund, it can be viewed as a merely recreational activity. This is precisely what has happened. Far from being revered, sexuality is treated more and more with indifference. So too, women are more seen as sexual objects than complete human beings.

The sexual revolution and the feminism which fueled it, promised that promiscuity and open sexuality would empower and free women. However, it's so easy to see that it's had the opposite effect. Women now reveal more and more of their bodies until they're practically naked in order to elicit attention. This has placed inordinate pressure upon women to cater to what men want to see. It's odd how the "liberation" has actually made woen more subject to the desires of men in the way that they dress and behave. This has translated into women feeling inadequate and constantly striving for an unachievable perfection. All while men are sitting back and enjoying the show.

Even more than simply enjoying the show, men are in the thick of it. While the general lowering of respect of women is not typically intentional, men no longer need to feel any sense of obligation or duty to woman who gives her very self to a man in the marital act. In fact, sexual promiscuity cheapens the value of the marital act (simple supply and demand) and actually diminishes the woman's associated "power".

All of this is perhaps most evident in pop culture. There has always been pop culture. If you do an historical examination of pop culture and it's songs and slogans you see that women have been more and more sexualized and consequently more and more objectified as opposed to empowered. Even the performers are not generally immune. It's not enough to be a talented songwriter or have a brilliant voice, you'd better conform your body to current standards of beauty or you're done.

Finally, after the smoke clears and the dust settles guess who is paying the highest price for all of this "liberation"? It's women. And among the various communities, the black community is hit the hardest. It is estimated that in their lifetimes, over 80% of all black women will be at one time or another be a single mother. I don't care who you are, where you're from, or how much money you have, single parenthood is a treacherous struggle.

In closing, there's no intellectually honest way one can look at the scantly clad, promiscous, divorced, single mothers of today and believe they're respected the same or more than they were in 1950. It's rediculous and it's sad.

 

[praying]

Well, first of all, let me explain as succinctly as possible the reason behind the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception. The Church understands the marital act to be sacred in nature. According to the church's understanding, in the marital act, human beings participate directly with God in the creation of more human beings. It is always untimately God who decides if new life will result from any given marital act. For this reason, when spouses engage in it, they, in physical and spiritual union with one another, call upon God to bless their marraige. While new life is considered to be the highest blessing the act can produce, there are also the graces of spiritual communion between spouses and obvious physical graces.

The Church uinderstands artificial contraception to be the effective desecration of the marital act. As you probably know, to desecrate is to take something sacred in nature and strip it of it's sanctity, or to profane it. Theologically speaking, by intentionally closing the marital act to life, one effectively expresses to God that that they intend to utilize the marital act for it's physical (or even unitive) benefits, but are not interested or willing to participate in it's higher, sacred purpose.

As for the correlations between contraception and men's view of women, it's actually quite visible in our society. The first of the indicators is the uncomfortable correlation between widespread use of contraception and the increase in divorce and single parenthood. Once the marital act rendered infecund, it can be viewed as a merely recreational activity. This is precisely what has happened. Far from being revered, sexuality is treated more and more with indifference. So too, women are more seen as sexual objects than complete human beings.

The sexual revolution and the feminism which fueled it, promised that promiscuity and open sexuality would empower and free women. However, it's so easy to see that it's had the opposite effect. Women now reveal more and more of their bodies until they're practically naked in order to elicit attention. This has placed inordinate pressure upon women to cater to what men want to see. It's odd how the "liberation" has actually made woen more subject to the desires of men in the way that they dress and behave. This has translated into women feeling inadequate and constantly striving for an unachievable perfection. All while men are sitting back and enjoying the show.

Even more than simply enjoying the show, men are in the thick of it. While the general lowering of respect of women is not typically intentional, men no longer need to feel any sense of obligation or duty to woman who gives her very self to a man in the marital act. In fact, sexual promiscuity cheapens the value of the marital act (simple supply and demand) and actually diminishes the woman's associated "power".

All of this is perhaps most evident in pop culture. There has always been pop culture. If you do an historical examination of pop culture and it's songs and slogans you see that women have been more and more sexualized and consequently more and more objectified as opposed to empowered. Even the performers are not generally immune. It's not enough to be a talented songwriter or have a brilliant voice, you'd better conform your body to current standards of beauty or you're done.

Finally, after the smoke clears and the dust settles guess who is paying the highest price for all of this "liberation"? It's women. And among the various communities, the black community is hit the hardest. It is estimated that in their lifetimes, over 80% of all black women will be at one time or another be a single mother. I don't care who you are, where you're from, or how much money you have, single parenthood is a treacherous struggle.

In closing, there's no intellectually honest way one can look at the scantly clad, promiscous, divorced, single mothers of today and believe they're respected the same or more than they were in 1950. It's rediculous and it's sad.

Very insightful post, most of which I agree with, especially women revealing more and more of themselves with only one idea in mine.

Can you provide a link for the 80% of Black women being single mothers at some point in time.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Thank you for your response Carly

You're welcome.

You did exactly what I asked you to, explain the Catholic church's reasoning behind their prohibition on contraception. Honestly, I don't have much of a rebuttle because your position (and that of the catholic church) seems to be purely religious in nature. Those are your beliefs, and you are entitled to them. I will try however, to make a couple points based on my limited knowledge of the Bible and Catholic tradition. You posted a lot of material so I will only respond to a few of the things that stuck out to me, at least for now

First of all, I don't think that whole concept of "incarnate love", which I am having trouble fully understanding, necessarily follows from the bible quotes given. In fact I think using those passages to support the idea that sexual intercourse must involve the man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in the woman is absurd. That whole "Christ's union with the church" thing doesn't really work because I asssume that will not involve any exchange of bodily fluids . But that is, of course only my opinion. The trouble is that you can't really know anything for sure with this kind of argument, as scripture is always open to different interpretations. Whose interpretation is correct? Obviously you believe the Catholic Church's is, but why?

Okay, the concept of incarnational theology, and specifically incarnational love, do not flow from a few Bible verses, but from the whole of Scripture and Tradition. Christian theology accepts that God became man, thus we believe in incarnational theology. Now, some Protestants have moved away from this.

Have you ever noticed how Catholic Mass allows one to worship through the senses? The sense of sight is nourished by images of those who have gone before us in the faith. We smell the incense, hear the bells, worship with our body by standing kneeling genuflecting, etc. This sense of incarnational worship is not as prevalent in most of Protestantism.

The whole Catholic faith is based upon the belief that God became man. Thus, the physical world matters. We were redeemed by a physical death. For Christians, it can't all be "just spiritual" since God chose to save us through incarnation.

Your comment about the various interpretations of Scripture is astute. This is why I could never accept sola scriptura. There are millions of devout, sincere Christians who come up with contradictory interpretations of Scripture. How can Scripture alone be sufficient when this happens?

Why do accept the Catholic interpretation as correct? Well, Catholics don't interpret the Bible in a vacuum for starters. We interpret it within the context of the whole of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and He promised to reveal the fullness of truth in her, and not to allow the gates of hell to prevail. That's why I accept the Catholic interpretation.

Anyway, I have read the vast majority of the Bible (I admit to skimming some of the more droning old testament books) and never did I see a passage that would lead me to believe that contraception is wrong. I disagree with the ones cited in you quotes, but feel free to post some more. I also realize that the Catholic Church does not rely solely on the bible for guidance, and to that I can only say that church leaders have been mistaken about things in the past (whole heliocentrism ordeal) and this could be one of them.

Catholics don't base doctrines on isolated verses. Catholic teaching is a synthesis of the whole of revelation. Just like we don't require the Bible to say "Thou shalt not distribute child pornography" in order to condemn it, we don't require other moral teachings to be explicitly spelled out in that way.

The heliocentrism thing is not a fair analogy. The Church does not and does not claim to have the authority to teach about issues not pertaining to faith and morals. The Church never defined doctrines about the organization of the universe, and it does not today. The Church teaches authoritatively on matters of faith and morals only.

It seems that the argument by bad analogy is very popular in these kind of debates. Can you give any scriptural or empirical evidence that contraception "robs man of his God given dignity, as he acts no longer in the image and likeness of God."?
Well, there is isn't really much else of substance I can say for now, given the nature of your arguments, so I eagerly await your reply

Well yes. In the Trinity, the perfect and whole outpouring of love of the Father and Son for one another creates the Holy Spirit. The sexual act allows the husband and wife to participate in the inner life of the Trinity. Contraception says "no thanks God, I prefer sterile [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to participation in your inner life."

 

[Filia Mariae]

One thing I forgot to ask, can anyone think of a good non-religious argument against contraception? I think that would make for a more interesting debate. I can think of many secular arguments for contraception, it is a good way to fight poverty, overpoulation, and of course, it alows people who don't want to have children (and some people really shoudn't imo) to enjoy sexual intimacy.

Well, we do know that people who use NFP virtually never divorce, and given the societal implications of single parent households, that's a pretty good point. In addition, chemical methods of birth control have many potentially harmful effects on women.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Thanks Carly that was quite interesting. Now another question my husband and I have 2 children and then he had a vasectomy I guess that is out. We could have afforded more but felt two was enough. Is it okay to have x number of kids and then stop or if for instance you are the Rockefellors then is the sky the limit. And what about the idea of the population explosion.

Hi Mhatten

Catholics do not believe that it is okay to decide we don't want to be blessed with any more kids "just because."

In the western world, we actually have a problem with not enough children being born, especially in western Europe. In fact as someone else stated, the population of the whole world could live in Texas.

Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles and current UN estimates of the world's population are about 6 billion. By converting square miles to square feet — remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice — and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita.

A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space. Even in Texas, that's a mansion.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Hi again

Well I am no expert on population explosion but I have my doubts on fitting everyone in the world in Texas, unless we lived like sardines in a can

See my above post, We could in fact all live in Texas!

You did not address the ? though of if you can afford and there are no other reasons I guess the woman is just suppose to have kids until she can't. Having children is quite the strain on a woman's body even when everything goes perfectly.

No, financial issues and health issues are legitimate reason to practice NFP/

So NFP (which stands for?) is basically the rythym method yes I know not my grandma's method. What do you mean about the two weeks I assume during the month, are you saying you are not sexually active during that time?

NFP is not the rhythm method. The rhythm method is not very effective, unless you have a very regular cycle. NFP is effective, even for women who do not have a regular cycle. Generally, the couple abstains for about one week. Fertility signs are tracked by date like the rhythm method, but also by basal body temperature or other symptoms.

You can read about the basics here:
http://ccli.org/nfp/index.shtml

How does oral sex come into play in this? Is oral sex no okay in Catholic doctirne.

Catholics believe that sexual activity needs to end in a completed act of intercourse. Foreplay is fine.