The Evils of Contraception

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
On another thread someone commented that Christians should be able to figure out the “evils of contraception.” I’m not going to post the quote because I’m not trying to call anyone out. And I decided to start a new thread so as to not derail the other. That being said...

Excluding contraception that terminates life (Plan B, for example), please discuss how contraception that prevents fertilization (condoms, for example) are evil.
 

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

. . .​

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 beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need 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.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Excluding contraception that terminates life (Plan B, for example), please discuss how contraception that prevents fertilization (condoms, for example) are evil.
I would not call contraception evil, but there are two things worth noting: 1) God wants children born, and his number is in the multiple billions; 2) Satan wants babies dead and is using wicked men to bring that to pass, whether it be war, abortion, or convincing people that they are homosexual so they will not propagate.

Planned Parenthood ruined the concept of planning a family since they had an agenda of ethnic destruction, and abortion as a money maker. But contraception used to delay childbirth for strong marriages, and fiscal responsibility is wise if done in the right way and time.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman,
Hmm. Well, after reflecting further, I've got to say I find this utterly unconvincing. Reproduction is not the sole function of sex.
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

. . .​

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 beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need 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.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

I was actually looking for something scriptural, but if that's what you base your opinion on, I thank you for your explanation.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Hmm. Well, after reflecting further, I've got to say I find this utterly unconvincing. Reproduction is not the sole function of sex.
The document I posted does not state that reproduction is the sole function of sex. Hence the word "partially" in the text.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I was actually looking for something scriptural, but if that's what you base your opinion on, I thank you for your explanation.
Well you can start with Psalm 127:3-5 and Genesis 1:28. Apply reason from there.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The document I posted does not state that reproduction is the sole function of sex. Hence the word "partially" in the text.
The meaning of "partially" there is less than clear to me. It could mean that there are other purposes for sex, or it could mean that contraception can be used to partially thwart the aim of reproduction -- limiting but not eliminating it. Regardless, I find the line of argument unpersuasive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well you can start with Psalm 127:3-5 and Genesis 1:28. Apply reason from there.

Psalm 127:3-5

3 Children are a heritage from the Lord,
offspring a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their opponents in court.


Genesis 1:28

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

None of the priests I knew growing up had children, but I don’t consider that evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaymondG
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
The meaning of "partially" there is less than clear to me. It could mean that there are other purposes for sex, or it could mean that contraception can be used to partially thwart the aim of reproduction -- limiting but not eliminating it. Regardless, I find the line of argument unpersuasive.
As the document indicates, God created sex for procreative purposes and unitative purposes. The use of condoms purposely attempts to thwart one of God's purposes for the act that He designed.
 
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
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Whether those joined in sacred Holy Matrimony always leave their sexual bond open to the possibility of conception is not a matter to be determined by an absolute rule based upon any mere man's personal Christian philosophy. It is determined by the unique needs and situation of the man and woman in question, on a case by case basis, and with the council of God. This is and has always been a pastoral matter and not a dogmatic one. Otherwise it causes too much trouble and confusion over the place of sexual love in the Life of Holy Matrimony in the Church.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As the document indicates, God created sex for procreative purposes and unitative purposes. The use of condoms purposely attempts to thwart one of God's purposes for the act that He designed.
Right. That's the argument I find unpersuasive. First, because deciding that you know what God's purposes are, and that you know them well enough to impose severe restrictions on the behavior of others -- well, I major problems with that.

Second, even if I were to grant that God intends certain purposes for human behaviors (and that we know those purposes), the idea that by choosing to fulfill only one of those purposes on some occasions is thwarting God's will makes no sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Right. That's the argument I find unpersuasive. First, because deciding that you know what God's purposes are, and that you know them well enough to impose severe restrictions on the behavior of others -- well, I major problems with that.

Second, even if I were to grant that God intends certain purposes for human behaviors (and that we know those purposes), the idea that by choosing to fulfill only one of those purposes on some occasions is thwarting God's will makes no sense to me.
Do you agree that procreation is one of God's purposes for sex?

If you agree that it is, then the use of a condom is an attempt to thwart that purpose. The point of a condom is to prevent a new life, is it not?

If you do not agree that procreation is one of God's purposes for sex, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,455.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you agree that procreation is one of God's purposes for sex?
No. I think it would be highly presumptuous of me to say what God's purposes are for natural phenomena. I don't say that God's purpose for the malaria parasite is to kill babies, for example. (And if it is, it's a purpose that I'm doing my best to thwart.)

If you agree that it is, then the use of a condom is an attempt to thwart that purpose. The point of a condom is to prevent a new life, is it not?
If you grant the premise, then sure, contraception thwarts one of God's purposes. So do many of the other actions we perform routinely as human beings. Preparing a low-calorie meal thwarts God's purpose for food, which is to provide nutrition (and what of sugarless gum?). Building a roof thwarts God's purpose for rain, which is to make things grow. Refrigeration thwarts God's purpose for bacteria, which is to cause decay.

Why is it okay to thwart those purposes but not this one?
 
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

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
No. I think it would be highly presumptuous of me to say what God's purposes are for natural phenomena. I don't say that God's purpose for the malaria parasite is to kill babies, for example. (And if it is, it's a purpose that I'm doing my best to thwart.)


If you grant the premise, then sure, contraception thwarts one of God's purposes. So do many of the other actions we perform routinely as human beings. Preparing a low-calorie meal thwarts God's purpose for food, which is to provide nutrition (and what of sugarless gum?). Building a roof thwarts God's purpose for rain, which is to make things grow. Refrigeration thwarts God's purpose for bacteria, which is to cause decay.

Why is it okay to thwart those purposes but not this one?
These are good points. I'll need to look up some answers and get back to you.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you agree that procreation is one of God's purposes for sex?

If you agree that it is, then the use of a condom is an attempt to thwart that purpose. The point of a condom is to prevent a new life, is it not?

If you do not agree that procreation is one of God's purposes for sex, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
procreation is only one of God's purposes for sex, but not all of them. A condom is not always used to thwart conception. It is sometimes used for other reasonable purposes. Also, it may serve God's purpose for some joined in Holy Matrimony to bring many children into the world, but may also serve God's purpose if some joined in Holy Matrimony do not bring even one child into the world. Each husband and wife bond is a unique being in the eyes of God: all are equal, but none are the same, or identical in any way. Using Christian philosophy to create a dogmatic formula and applying it universally to all of these beings as if they were all identical beings is not Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
No. I think it would be highly presumptuous of me to say what God's purposes are for natural phenomena. I don't say that God's purpose for the malaria parasite is to kill babies, for example. (And if it is, it's a purpose that I'm doing my best to thwart.)
Well, I am not sure that I would consider sex merely a natural phenomena in light of 1 Corinthians 6, but that is another debate, I suppose.

I wouldn't call the conclusion highly presumptuous. I would call it an exercise of logic and reason. Is it presumptuous to conclude that God gifted the Eagle with wings so that it could fly? In nature we do not see any other means by which human beings come into existence, other than through sex.

If you grant the premise, then sure, contraception thwarts one of God's purposes. So do many of the other actions we perform routinely as human beings. Preparing a low-calorie meal thwarts God's purpose for food, which is to provide nutrition (and what of sugarless gum?). Building a roof thwarts God's purpose for rain, which is to make things grow. Refrigeration thwarts God's purpose for bacteria, which is to cause decay.

Why is it okay to thwart those purposes but not this one?
This line of argument is difficult for me to answer, but here is how another person answers it:

Birth Control: The Case for the Catholic

It is important to note that the argument which is being urged against contraception is not based on any such principle as 'It is always sinful to oppose or to check any force of nature.' The misunderstanding of this point has occasioned innumerable objections of the species known as reductio ad absurdum against the Church's denunciation of contraceptive practices. For example: 'The Catholic teaching on birth control would lead to the conclusion that a person commits a sinful act whenever he cuts his hair or trims his nails, since in performing these actions one frustrates nature.'

The flaw in this manner of reasoning is the failure to distinguish between the restricting of a natural power and the preventing of the purpose of a natural power. The former by no means necessarily includes the latter. It is within the designs of nature itself that there should be opposition and conflict among the multitudinous forces and agents that operate in the universe, that one creature should restrain and control the tendencies and activities of another and utilize them to its own advantage. The animal violently interrupts the vital functioning of the plant by using it as food, and man does the same to the animal; but there is no frustration of any divinely ordained purpose in this process. On the contrary, there is the fulfillment of the Creator's design that the lower in the scale of perfection should contribute to the sustenance of the higher. Similarly -- to answer the specific objection -- when a person cuts his hair or trims his nails he does indeed curtail the growth of these bodily appendages, but their chief purpose, the utility of the individual himself, is promoted rather than frustrated. Certainly nature does not call for an unchecked augmentation of hair and nails; they must be clipped if they would be beneficial to the whole person, to whom they are subservient as the lesser good to the greater. But it is an utterly different case with contraception, which prevents the very primary purpose of sexual activity and inverts the due order of things by making the social benefit of conjugal intercourse subservient to the benefit of the individuals concerned.

This can be illustrated by a development of the parallelism which exists between the faculty of nutrition and that of sex. The primary purpose of the former is to preserve the life of the individual; the primary purpose of the latter is to preserve the life of the human race. To attract human beings to the due use of these faculties, the Creator has annexed to the functioning of each a feeling of pleasure. Sexual gratification is particularly vehement, and in this is manifest the sagacity of divine providence, inducing men and women to undertake the arduous duties of parenthood for the benefit of the human race. But, to continue the analogy, it is possible for a person to enjoy the pleasure accompanying the use of either of these faculties, and at the same time to distort his action in such wise that its chief purpose is rendered unattainable. This is what takes place relative to the sexual faculty when contraception is employed. And the analogous case in the use of the nutritive faculty is the revolting practice of some ancient Roman gourmands, who ate to satiety and then induced regurgitation. In each case the sensual gratification intended by the Creator as an incentive to the use of the respective faculty is sought and enjoyed, while the divinely established main purpose is deliberately and positively obstructed. Is it not strange that many persons who shudder at the very thought of the disgusting custom of the ancient voluptuaries do not hesitate to defend and to practise the equally perverse operation of contraception?
 
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