• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Contraception

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cobalt Blue said:
Got any evidence to back up this "fact"?
Yup, see my ealier post.


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".
If you are interested in hearing the experiences of people using NFP, come to OBOB and ask. You might be surprised.:)


:eek: 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?! :scratch:
I will let him reply to you, since I don't want to speak for him. What he is generally driving at is that contraception separates sex from procreation, making contracepted sex no different than homosexual sex. It denigrates women because it makes them sex objects instead of bearers of new life.
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,648
1,608
68
New Jersey
✟108,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Carly said:
I will let him reply to you, since I don't want to speak for him. What he is generally driving at is that contraception separates sex from procreation, making contracepted sex no different than homosexual sex. It denigrates women because it makes them sex objects instead of bearers of new life.


suppose it is the woman iniating the sex act?
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
mhatten said:
suppose it is the woman iniating the sex act?
Then the issue of self-respect come into play. Do I respect myself as God created me- the bearer of new life, created to receive that gift and offer it back to God as I raise my child to serve Him? Or do I cheapen this act of participation in God's inner life to be just a pleasurable exchange and reject the opportunity to act in God's image and likeness?
 
Upvote 0

praying

Snazzy Title Goes Here
Site Supporter
Jan 9, 2004
32,648
1,608
68
New Jersey
✟108,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
These are heady issues, that not being Catholic I haven't thought about.

What about the scenario I described of a couple who is financially and physically able to have any amount children but decides that x number is enough. Are you as Catholics obligated to continue procreation until the body naturally stops the process?
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
mhatten said:
These are heady issues, that not being Catholic I haven't thought about.

What about the scenario I described of a couple who is financially and physically able to have any amount children but decides that x number is enough. Are you as Catholics obligated to continue procreation until the body naturally stops the process?
They are obligated to be open to conception. That doesn't mean they have to try to conceive every month. There is no set list of "this counts as reason to use NFP, this doesn't" because it is going to vary from couple to couple. Each couple has to discern every month whether or not they are called to try and conceive.
 
Upvote 0

Cobalt Blue

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
96
3
Visit site
✟227.00
Faith
Atheist
Thank you for the reply Carly :)

**** I accidently pressed the back button deleting my whole post :mad:

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.
Interesting, I didn't know that, and I almost posted saying you were wrong (forgot to square the feet, math was never my strong point :D ). But remember that in most parts of the world our population is still increasing exponentially, which will mean A LOT more people very soon. Also, it is not the amount of space we take up that is the problem, but that amount of waste we produce and the harm we do to the environment. While the west may not be making as many babies as the rest of the world, we produce the vast majority of pollution and waste, so it would not be a good thing for us to start reproducing exponentially again.

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.
I wasn't just paying attention to isolated verses either, and still didn't get that impression. The pornography thing has some basis because the bible condemns lust and I believe nudity (not sure though) in several places. It still seems to me that the church is just reading into it things that aren't there.

As to heliocentrism,
Even if the church doesn't claim to have authority to teach those kinds of things these days, they certainly did back then or they wouldn't have threatned Galileo. They even used the bible to back up their position!
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the church for changing that, but either way you have to admit that church was wrong in some way. I only wish the church would be more open to change in spiritual matters. But then of course the same thing might happen to it that happened to protestants, with everyone and his dog starting a new denomination, it is indeed a tough situation :scratch:

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.
The first thing I learned in AP psychology (I will never forget it because the teacher drilled it into our heads soooo many times) was that correlation does not determine causation. Just like the fact that couples who live together first have higher rates of divorce, it could very well be a third factor causing the difference. For example people who wait until marriage to have sex, and then do not use artificial birth control, are usually very religious and very opposed to the idea of divorce, and so are much less likely to even see it as an option. They are more likely to work through hard times rather that get up and leave. Let me say that I think this is one positive aspect of religion and I plan to go into marriage with this very mind set (albeit for different reasons).

I'll end this post by saying that I still don't get what the huge importance of [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], and I probably never will. I really doubt that using a condom takes much away from the sexual experience for most people, and few testimonies won't change my mind. My cold analytical mind (;) ) values statistics much more than personal anecdotes.

Well, I look forward to your reply!
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cobalt Blue said:
Thank you for the reply Carly :)

**** I accidently pressed the back button deleting my whole post :mad:
I hate it when I do that!


Interesting, I didn't know that, and I almost posted saying you were wrong (forgot to square the feet, math was never my strong point :D ). But remember that in most parts of the world our population is still increasing exponentially, which will mean A LOT more people very soon. Also, it is not the amount of space we take up that is the problem, but that amount of waste we produce and the harm we do to the environment. While the west may not be making as many babies as the rest of the world, we produce the vast majority of pollution and waste, so it would not be a good thing for us to start reproducing exponentially again.
The point is that the world is not overpopulated, and the amount of waste we produce has to do with our lifestyle, not the number of people. I assure you that you and I produce more waste than 10 people in Nigeria.


I wasn't just paying attention to isolated verses either, and still didn't get that impression. The pornography thing has some basis because the bible condemns lust and I believe nudity (not sure though) in several places. It still seems to me that the church is just reading into it things that aren't there.
Lust is the turning of someone into a sexual object, which is what contraception does, turning the object of sex into pleasure.

As to heliocentrism,
Even if the church doesn't claim to have authority to teach those kinds of things these days, they certainly did back then or they wouldn't have threatned Galileo. They even used the bible to back up their position!
Don't get me wrong, I applaud the church for changing that, but either way you have to admit that church was wrong in some way. I only wish the church would be more open to change in spiritual matters. But then of course the same thing might happen to it that happened to protestants, with everyone and his dog starting a new denomination, it is indeed a tough situation :scratch:
Please read this about Galileo:
http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

The
first thing I learned in AP psychology (I will never forget it because the teacher drilled it into our heads soooo many times) was that correlation does not determine causation. Just like the fact that couples who live together first have higher rates of divorce, it could very well be a third factor causing the difference. For example people who wait until marriage to have sex, and then do not use artificial birth control, are usually very religious and very opposed to the idea of divorce, and so are much less likely to even see it as an option. They are more likely to work through hard times rather that get up and leave. Let me say that I think this is one positive aspect of religion and I plan to go into marriage with this very mind set (albeit for different reasons).

I'll end this post by saying that I still don't get what the huge importance of [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], and I probably never will. I really doubt that using a condom takes much away from the sexual experience for most people, and few testimonies won't change my mind. My cold analytical mind (;) ) values statistics much more than personal anecdotes.


Well, I look forward to your reply!
I know correlation doesn't imply causation. But it also doesn't disprove causation. Contraception is part of a lifestyle which often results in divorce. It's not contraception alone, its the whole mindset and lifestyle.
 
Upvote 0

Cobalt Blue

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
96
3
Visit site
✟227.00
Faith
Atheist
The point is that the world is not overpopulated, and the amount of waste we produce has to do with our lifestyle, not the number of people. I assure you that you and I produce more waste than 10 people in Nigeria.
But my point is that it will be soon if we continue to reproduce at these levels - exponential growth, I assume you have seen the graphs. And yes, in addition to slowing down our reproductive rates, we need to adjust our lifestyles so that they are less wasteful and more friendly toward the environment.

Lust is the turning of someone into a sexual object, which is what contraception does, turning the object of sex into pleasure.
No, the exact same thing is happening as in using NFP, sex without reproduction. The only difference is in one case the male [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 and in the other he [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 a latex sac. Neither is fool proof so, God could still cause them to have a baby if he wanted, let's say by making the condom break.

Please read this about Galileo:
I will read that a little later, as I don't want to risk losing this post by doing something stupid again. I assume it will point out the fact that Galileo wrote a satirical book that kind of made fun of the church and that was what made the church so mad. Alright, I'll give you that point :)

I know correlation doesn't imply causation. But it also doesn't disprove causation. Contraception is part of a lifestyle which often results in divorce. It's not contraception alone, its the whole mindset and lifestyle.
Ok then! So contraception isn't the problem, it is peoples mind sets. Then it is not contraception that has to go, it is is poeple's attitudes that need to to change. I agree. But i also think that if people want to live a life lie that, it is their choice and if it works for them, go for it. It is not for me however.
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cobalt Blue said:
BUt my point is that it will be soon if we continue to reproduce at these levels - eponential growth, I assume you have seen the graphs. And yes, in addition to slowing down our reproductive rates, we need to adjust our lifestyles so that they are less wasteful and more friendly toward the environment.
Personally, I don't think we'll be around for that long but....

If God commands us to do or not do something, He has a reason and provisions.


No, the exact same thing is happening as in using NFP, sex without reproduction. The only difference is in one case the male [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 and in the other he [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 a latex sac. Neither is fool proof so, God could still cause them to have a baby if he wanted, let's say by making the condom break.
No NFP respects the design of the body. Your body does not come with a latex appendage. A woman's body does naturally come with infertile times. NFP respects this. You logic of "God could give them a baby if He wanted" is faulty. I could shoot you and say "Yeah but God could have stopped me if He wanted."


Ok then! So contraception isn't the problem, it is peoples mind sets. Then it is not contraception that has to go, it is is poeple's attitudes that need to to change. I agree. But i also think that if people want to live a life lie that, it is their choice and if it works for them, go for it. It is not for me however.
No both act and intent matter. Contraception and the contraceptive mentality are both the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Cobalt Blue

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
96
3
Visit site
✟227.00
Faith
Atheist
Aright, I just read the Galileo article, and it indeed made the point I predicted, and also made an interesting point that the church never claimed it's condemnation of Galileo's work was infalible. I never knew this, so another point to you :)

Still I must point out that the argument used by the pope (I believe something like: God could have created a geocentric solar system that appeared heliocentric), while an interesting philisophical point, goes against the very foundations of science and Galileo was right to critisize it. He should have done so in a more tactful way however.
 
Upvote 0

Cobalt Blue

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
96
3
Visit site
✟227.00
Faith
Atheist
Personally, I don't think we'll be around for that long but....
We certainly won't be around very long if have that kind of mentality :(

No NFP respects the design of the body. Your body does not come with a latex appendage. A woman's body does naturally come with infertile times. NFP respects this. You logic of "God could give them a baby if He wanted" is faulty. I could shoot you and say "Yeah but God could have stopped me if He wanted."
What is with this Catholic obsession with what is "natural"? From my point of view, the human body is the imperfect result of billions of years of evolution and can be improved upon.

No both act and intent matter. Contraception and the contraceptive mentality are both the problem.
No, the problem is that many people are only looking for instant gratification and are not looking at the long term. Contraception may be an important part of this lifestyle, but it is also useful to couples who just don't want to have children. And believe, there are some people who shouln't. Why should they not be aloud intimacy?
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cobalt Blue said:
What is with this Catholic obsession with what is "natural"? From my point of view, the human body is the imperfect result of billions of years of evolution and can be improved upon.
Nope, the human body was perfect before the fall. It will not be perfected again until we are raised. (and I am not a creationist so this is not an anti-evolution argument).

We respect the natural because that is the way God made it. You can't improve on God. If He wanted you to have a latex appendage, you would.

No, the problem is that many people are only looking for instant gratification and are not looking at the long term. Contraception may be an important part of this lifestyle, but it is also useful to couples who just don't want to have children. And believe, there are some people who shouln't. Why should they not be aloud intimacy?
a) NFP works. It is not the rhythm method.
b) No one has a "right" to sex. It is a gift. No one needs sex to survive.
 
Upvote 0

Cobalt Blue

Active Member
Jun 24, 2003
96
3
Visit site
✟227.00
Faith
Atheist
Carly said:
Nope, the human body was perfect before the fall. It will not be perfected again until we are raised. (and I am not a creationist so this is not an anti-evolution argument).

We respect the natural because that is the way God made it. You can't improve on God. If He wanted you to have a latex appendage, you would.
Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here, because I obviously don't believe any of this. I don't beleive there is any such thing as "perfection" in the real world. Most people just use the term for the way they think things should be. This obviously varies from person to person. One person's perfect woman might not be anothers.

which reminds me of a post I forgot to respond to

Magisterium said:
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.
I already adressed contraceptions link to this and the correlation/causation fallacy so I will move on to the rest. Feminism was never pro-promiscuity from what I understand. And there is a difference between sexual promiscuity and being open about sexuality.

Also, I doubt that men care nearly as much about the rediculous standards of the fashion industry and pop culture as women think they do. My ideal woman (physically) looks nothing like the image promoted by the media. I have to say you are largely right about the media and popular culture. Personally I despise most aspects of pop culture fot his and many other reasons (the terrible excuse for "music" it tries to shove on us. MTV must die!!! ;) ). Once again I'll say we have to change people's attitudes. Contraception may make sexual promiscuity easier, but taht is not reason enough to condemn it completely imo. It also serves a ligitimate purpose for married couples who do not want any more children (or any children at al) but still want to enjoy sexual intimacy. It should be up to the couple to decide waht method they want to use. If they feel artificial birthcontrol takes away from their intimacy, by all means they should use NFP. If they don't however, than I can see nother wrong with the good old condom.

Carly said:
a) NFP works. It is not the rhythm method.
b) No one has a "right" to sex. It is a gift. No one needs sex to survive.
No method of birth control except abstinence is fool proof.
Sure we have a "right" to sex, we have a "right" to do whatever we are able to do, when it comes down to it. "Rights" are an artificial concept inveneted to tell people what they are and are not aloud to do in society. Generally, I beleive our "rights" should end when they infringe on those of others. We should act kindly and responsibly.
 
Upvote 0

Anovah

Senior Member
Jun 6, 2004
3,622
189
46
Oregon
✟29,597.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Eucharista said:
the western world is not replacing itself.
Correct. It's not replacing itself, it's growing.

Eucharista said:
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.
Fallacy - your reasoning and understanding of overpopulation. You equate the issue of overpopulation with how much space the human body takes up. If we were to continue your reasoning we could not only fit everyone in texas, but we could probably fit them all in houston, sholder to shoulder. You seem to make a reference to a need for a home so we would just need to build a big enough sky scrapper in houston, right?

Wrong.

The problem with overpopulation is in the relationship between how many people there are vs. the resources our planet can provide. Do you know what happens to soil when you overfarm? Or when there is no fresh water supply? At this point, natures resources are inadequate to support our dense populations. To say otherwise is to simply make yourself feel warm and cozy.

So now that we have everybody in texas, where do they get their food from? Where does their garbage go? Sewage? Do you have any idea how much fresh water would be required? All of a sudden texas feels kinda small.

Contraception is an invaluable tool when it comes to overpopulation.


Eucharista said:
The fatc is, that sin nature is making it difficult for people in certain countries to survive.
So wait...you do agree there is a problem??? Perhaps sin nature creates the problem of overpopulation. But it is still a problem.

Eucharista said:
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.
Yes...put your head in the sand an repeat a thousand times "God will provide, god will provide, god will provide"

Listen, there is a certain amount of thinking and acting people need to do for themselves. This philosophy is dangerous as you are not using any forethought in relationship to your actions. You DO effect your environment.

Eucharista said:
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.
Vasectomies place an actual barricade as well (instead of the barricade being external, it is internal). Do you have the same problem with vasectomies?



Eucharista said:
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.
I agree with the latter. The man who does not work does not eat, and the man who does not build a shelter, freezes. The man who does not think about the children he brings into this world, will overpopulate it. Doing our part would be to be aware of these things and act accordingly.


I have a problem with the further statement however. "God will take care of you no matter how many children you have"??? I think there are orphanages full of kids who will disagree with you. Have you ever heard of neglect (and that is one example mind you)? You must DECIDE how many children to have so that neglect will not happen. God is the spiritual, you are the physical. It is YOU who must act, not God.


Eucharista said:
The only reason contraception is here is for sex on demand and the denagration of women and men
The ONLY reason? Really? Please rethink this and tell me if you come to the same conclusion. I'm confident a moment of thought will reveal other reasons.

Eucharista said:
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.
In your honest opinion, what do you think would happen if all forms of contraception were removed from this earth? Would the population grow? decrease? Why?

Eucharista said:
but what do I know?
Only what you allow yourself to.
 
Upvote 0

Filia Mariae

Senior Contributor
Jul 27, 2003
8,228
735
USA
Visit site
✟12,006.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Cobalt Blue said:
I already adressed contraceptions link to this and the correlation/causation fallacy so I will move on to the rest. Feminism was never pro-promiscuity from what I understand. And there is a difference between sexual promiscuity and being open about sexuality.
:D You don't know much about feminism then. Read up a little on Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger and the rest.

Sure we have a "right" to sex, we have a "right" to do whatever we are able to do, when it comes down to it. "Rights" are an artificial concept inveneted to tell people what they are and are not aloud to do in society. Generally, I beleive our "rights" should end when they infringe on those of others. We should act kindly and responsibly.
We will ahve to disagree I guess because we don't agree what "rights" are and where they come from.
 
Upvote 0
A

Archbishop 10-K

Guest
Cobalt Blue,

Allow me to first link you to some Scriptural verses that oppose contraception, and then the writings of the early Christians on why they opposed contraception. You will see that they are mainly on religious grounds, but hey, at least the Catholic Church is being consistent, right?

http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html Verses that oppose contraception.

Early Church Fathers quotes......

The Letter of Barnabas



"Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).


Clement of Alexandria



"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly [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], nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).


Hippolytus



"[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]).


Lactantius



"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).


Council of Nicaea I



"f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1 [A.D. 325]).


Epiphanius of Salamis



"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).


Augustine



"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid., 22:30).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

...

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility. . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 [A.D. 419]).


John Chrysostom



"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well. . . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws? . . . Yet such turpitude . . . the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

"n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds" (ibid., 62:3).

"Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers . . . ‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. . . . On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, "A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse" [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?" (Commentary on Galatians 5:12 [A.D. 395]).


Jerome



"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

"You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).


Caesarius of Arles



"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).
 
Upvote 0