Is contraception use a sin?

[Justin108]

Catholics believe that contraception use is a sin. Leviticus goes in depth about how to prepare an animal sacrifice. There are countless laws and prohibitions throughout the Bible, from what not to eat to what not to wear and not a single mention in the law that prohibits any form of contraceptive.

If contraception is a sin, why is there not a single commandment against it in the entire Bible? God felt the need to tell us to not eat bacon and to not mix fabrics but he never said a single thing about contraception. So why do Catholics believe it's a sin?

A defense Catholics often use is to bring up Onan who was killed by God for "spilling the seed". This, however, can clearly be explained away by the fact that Onan disobeyed a direct order from God to impregnate Tamar. This is similar to Lot's wife being punished for disobeying a direct order from God to not look around. But just as turning around isn't a sin in itself, "spilling the seed" can't be considered a sin either.

Is contraception use a sin? Is there any Biblical support for this belief?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

And because of this, they have absolute authority? If the Church decided what goes in the Bible, did they do so based on their own understanding? Or did they use objective archaeological and historical analysis to determine which texts are indeed authentic? If so, then the Church at this point was nothing but a group of glorified historians. Why should they hold absolute authority on Christianity just because they compiled the documentation?

I am not trying to be rude here, but it seems you do not understand Christianity. First, the Church has authority because Christ gave it to her. “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven . . . “ “If he refuses to listen even to the church . . . “ “I give to you the keys of the kingdom . . . “ “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.� “I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.�.

^ This demonstrates authority. The Church came first and she was given the authority to give us the Bible. There were many ancient writings and testimony of those who witnessed Christ, but the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit chose which would be in the Bible and which wouldn’t. It wasn’t simply about being historians, it was about being the ones entrusted with the task of guiding God’s children on earth by being herself guided by the Holy Spirit. Christians recognize Scripture as the word of God. By default, they are recognizing Christ’s Church in having the authority to give us Scripture.

Either they constructed the Bible through historic analysis

Historical analysis guided by the Holy Spirit.

If your point is that "well some texts are vague" - true. But laws are never vague

"Thou shalt not kill"
- Clear, precise, direct [/quote]

Huh? Does thou shall not kill include animals? What about a soldier at war? What about in self defense? What about abortion? Some Christians do not think abortion is killing because they think a woman has a right to her own body. So, clear? I don’t think so. Nothing in Scripture is crystal clear. I guarantee if you try to argue some obvious meaning from Scripture (been there. Done that.) you will find another sincere Christian who disagrees with you – hence websites like Debating Christianity.

So, like I said all Scripture needs interpreted. AND there is nothing magic about something you see in Scripture written as “specific law�. Scripture has “laws� that we no longer followed since the establishments of Christ's Church. Why are those no longer commands kept, but others like “thou shall not kill, is�? Christ established His Church to help us with such matters. He also established His Church before He had the Church give us the Bible. Therefore, Christ gave authority to the Church and the Church in her wisdom being guided by the Holy Spirit can clarify and declare things like the immorality of contraception.

can we both agree that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" is far more open to interpretation than "thou shalt not kill"?

The passage seems very clear to me, especially given context, but like I said, I guess we all don’t agree on what is obvious. Therefore, the only way to be certain is to trust Christ Himself and Christ Himself said, “He who hears you, hears me.� To prevent confusion and create unity Christ left us an authoritative Church. His Church tells us Christ was speaking literally when declaring, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" and His Church believes and teaches the immorality of contraception.

[Justin108]

And because of this, they have absolute authority? If the Church decided what goes in the Bible, did they do so based on their own understanding? Or did they use objective archaeological and historical analysis to determine which texts are indeed authentic? If so, then the Church at this point was nothing but a group of glorified historians. Why should they hold absolute authority on Christianity just because they compiled the documentation?

I am not trying to be rude here, but it seems you do not understand Christianity. First, the Church has authority because Christ gave it to her.

According to your subjective interpretation of scripture. But let's suppose for a moment that your interpretation is true... so Christ supposedly said that the Church has authority, and the Church decided to include this verse into the Bible, along with the interpretation stating that "this means the Church has authority". So the Church essentially gave itself authority by saying that Jesus said it should have authority. You don't find that at all suspicious?

- The Church has authority because the Bible said they have authority
- The Bible says the Church has authority because the Church decided to add a verse, stating they have authority

Why believe this is what the Bible says?
- because the Church says so
Why believe the Church?
- because the Bible says so
How do you know the Bible says so?
- because the Church says so
But why believe what the Church says?
- because the Bible says you should
According to?
- the Church

Please tell me I don't need to spell out the gaping flaw here

Either they constructed the Bible through historic analysis

Historical analysis guided by the Holy Spirit.

How do you know they were guided by the Holy Spirit?
- because the Bible says so
How do we know the Bible says so?
- because the Church decided that the Bible says so
But why believe what the Church decided?
- because they were guided by the Holy Spirit
How do we know?
- because the Bible says so
But how do we know the Bible says so?
- because the Church decided that the Bible says so

If your point is that "well some texts are vague" - true. But laws are never vague

"Thou shalt not kill"
- Clear, precise, direct

Huh? Does thou shall not kill include animals? What about a soldier at war? What about in self defense? What about abortion?

The rest of the Bible specifies and expands on this in even greater detail regarding which animals to kill, under which circumstances, when to wage war, when it's self defense, etc. I never said to only read the 10 Commandments. But once you've read Leviticus in its entirety, the command "thou shalt not kill" becomes far clearer. Unless of course you try to force it to be vague and open to interpretation, as you seem to be doing. Is the law 100% clear? No. Laws rarely are. That's why we have lawyers. But can we at the very least agree that this law is far clearer than the law against contraception?

can we both agree that “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" is far more open to interpretation than "thou shalt not kill"?

The passage seems very clear to me, especially given context, but like I said, I guess we all don’t agree on what is obvious. Therefore, the only way to be certain is to trust Christ Himself and Christ Himself said, “He who hears you, hears me.� To prevent confusion and create unity Christ left us an authoritative Church. His Church tells us Christ was speaking literally when declaring, "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" and His Church believes and teaches the immorality of contraception.

Is this a "no", then? You believe that both verses are equally clear and unambiguous?

To prevent confusion and create unity Christ left us an authoritative Church

You know what would also have avoided confusion? A verse stating "thou shalt not use contraceptives"

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Why believe this is what the Bible says?
- because the Church says so
Why believe the Church?
- because the Bible says so

Are you new around here? Believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. The same faith required to believe Christ established an authoritative Church is the same faith required to believe in Him in the first place.

How do you know they were guided by the Holy Spirit?
- because the Bible says so

Pretty much. If you are going to believe in the Bible, then you are agreeing to believing what it says. If the Bible says listen to the Church, you don’t get to turn around and say, I will believe X & Z because it is in the Bible, but not Y. That would be illogical. Why believe any of it?

Is the law 100% clear? No. Laws rarely are. That's why we have lawyers. But can we at the very least agree that this law is farclearer than the law against contraception?

Uuuum . . . clearly we cannot. I already said how given what we can know about God from Scripture, it is clear He would not be cool with contraception and this too is what the early Christians, the first Church, and every subsequent Christian denomination took away from Scripture from the get go.

You know what would also have avoided confusion? A verse stating "thou shalt not use contraceptives"

The first Church wasn’t confused. In fact, seems like it wasn’t until 1930 when suddenly people became “confused� about what Scripture was saying.

So, again the BEST way to avoid confusion is to have an established, earthly, authoritative Church. Otherwise Scripture can always be misinterpreted even when we think it obvious.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Just saw this today – pretty good . . .

https://dearpenn.wordpress.com/contraception/

[Justin108]

Why believe this is what the Bible says?
- because the Church says so
Why believe the Church?
- because the Bible says so

Are you new around here? Believing in Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. The same faith required to believe Christ established an authoritative Church is the same faith required to believe in Him in the first place.

Other Christian members on this forum say they believe in Jesus Christ based on reason. Well if you admit that your belief in the Church is not based on reason and thereby irrational by definition, then I guess there's no point debating you. There simply is no way to debate the irrational.

How do you know they were guided by the Holy Spirit?
- because the Bible says so

Pretty much. If you are going to believe in the Bible, then you are agreeing to believing what it says. If the Bible says listen to the Church, you don’t get to turn around and say, I will believe X & Z because it is in the Bible, but not Y.

The Bible only says to listen to the Church because the Church says that's what the Bible says. It is not an objective fact that the Bible says to believe in the Catholic Church. You just admitted that you simply believe that due to faith. There is nothing illogical about dismissing a belief solely based on faith.

Is the law 100% clear? No. Laws rarely are. That's why we have lawyers. But can we at the very least agree that this law is far clearer than the law against contraception?

Uuuum . . . clearly we cannot.

Well if you can't even admit that much then I'm wasting my time talking to you.

Just saw this today – pretty good . . .

https://dearpenn.wordpress.com/contraception/

Yes you've used an appeal to authority before. It didn't work then and it's not working now.

It's clear that I'm not going to get anything out of you other than fallacies and confirmation bias. You have failed in every instance to provide scriptural evidence behind your claim that contraception is a sin. All you have is conjecture and "because the Church says so". If you ever come across actual scriptural evidence, let me know. Until then, I suppose there's nothing else to say on this topic. We can wrap this up. Contraception is not a sin. Have a lovely day now.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Other Christian members on this forum say they believe in Jesus Christ based on reason. Well if you admit that your belief in the Church is not based on reason and thereby irrational by definition, then I guess there's no point debating you. There simply is no way to debate the irrational.

Faith AND reason. That is what I always say because it is true. You seem to have a habit of making a person’s response all or nothing.

Again, you seem to claim to only be accepting that from Scripture and yet I repeatedly inform you that is not how Christians come to their beliefs nor would it be reasonable to look at it that way.

The more reasonable and logical approach to Christianity is acknowledging both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition as our guide. That is the more rational approach, and like I said it requires the same faith to believe one as it does the other. So, to dismiss what the Church has to say about contraception is an illogical and unreasonable approach.

So, if you have nothing further, or are unable to explain why Scripture alone is or should be the be all end all for Christians, I am left to assume you have no case.

Well if you can't even admit that much then I'm wasting my time talking to you.

I believe you may be guilty of Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies


As my more than reasonable link demonstrated and here it is again for anyone interested, the immorality of contraception is based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and is both beautiful and logical.


https://dearpenn.wordpress.com/contraception/

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 39 by Claire Evans]

The claim is that there is no mention in the Bible because not much was known about it at the time.

There is mention of it in the Bible as already discussed -- in the story of creation/Genesis, in the story of Onan, in the psalms and proverbs. Also, contraception is not new. It has been attempted since the beginning of creation. There are historical records of drugs/potions to prevent conception as well as the withdrawal method.

According to the story of Onan, it was disobedience that angered God, not the fact that he used the withdrawal method.

Also, Scripture itself tells us we are to listen to Christ’s Church and Christ’s Church has believed and taught the immorality of contraception since Christ first established His Church.

Why should they automatically be right? Did they base their beliefs on what Jesus said about contraceptives? That's right, He didn't say anything about it according to the scriptures.

Back then, kids weren't that expensive like they are now. Back then, grown men married 12 year olds. Men don't do that now in our society.

It's ridiculous to say that you can murder a child before it's even conceived.

Who said anything about murder?

The early church father, Jerome!

I think the disapproval comes in that the RCC believe that the world is being deprived of more Catholics when contraceptives are being used.

That is quite the anti-Catholic ignorant statement. You show you do not know Catholic teaching. Catholicism does not teach that Catholics have to have as many children as they possibly can. And no, the Church isn’t out to get as many Catholics as she can. The Church is put in charge of teaching truth. She wants to help God’s children as best she can by standing firm in teaching what is right and good and to our benefit.

That's my personal opinion.

Today it is extremely irresponsible to bring a child into the world when one cannot afford it and the child lives in poverty.

Then wouldn’t it be extremely irresponsible to engage in sexual activity if one was not prepared to be a parent? No contraception is 100% effective. If you are having sex, you better realize you could be creating a new life – another human being.

What is irresponsible (not unlike bulimia) is to want the pleasure from engaging in some behavior, but not accept the natural consequences that occur from doing so.

My personal belief is that if one falls pregnant even if one used contraceptives, then they should see the baby to term and give it up for adoption unless there are medical reasons.

Isn't it better for people to take preventative measures against conception than fall pregnant time after time and the child suffers poverty? It is not practical to expect people to abstain from sex because of the small chance of falling pregnant.

Yet they hold onto their archaic views.

What is archaic about teaching the beauty and truth about love, marriage, sex, and family? Archaic thinking is to think a woman’s fertility is something that needs fixed. It’s archaic to think women ought to take a pill everyday that has side effects pages long. What’s archaic is to continually put the “responsibility� of parenthood on women, which historically is shown to be the case. What is archaic is to think we are all too ignorant to understand the human body and the way it works. It’s also archaic to think children are problems, mistakes, or liabilities. If I had a dime for every person I have met that confides in me they wish they would have had more children. It’s often too late for many to come to the realization of this beautiful truth and God’s plan for man. We need our children more than they need us. When it comes to children, you always get much more than you give. They are our greatest accomplishment and truly blessings. Gee, ya think God knew something we don’t?

Think of the consequences of not limiting children. Is it fair to bring children into the world when the parents cannot afford them? Would you prefer that? Jobs can become scarce because they are two many children. There is overcrowding in schools where the children suffer because they don't get enough attention from their teachers.


Is not remaining abstinent defying what God in Genesis said, "Go forth and multiply?" Is it not against nature to refrain from sex? Isn't it preventing procreation?

People think God is some draconian people ready to condemn the world because of rules made up by Christians. God is not unreasonable.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 49 by Claire Evans]

According to the story of Onan, it was disobedience that angered God, not the fact that he used the withdrawal method.

You mean according to you. I already discussed earlier in other threads how and why we know Onan’s sin was more than disobedience.

****************

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

Why should they automatically be right?

Because Christ established His Church and said, “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven� “thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church� the church is “the pillar and foundation of truth� I will remain with my church always and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it�

^ That’s why!

Did they base their beliefs on what Jesus said about contraceptives?

The Church based her teachings on Scripture and what Christ taught. Christ’s Church has the authority to speak to God’s people.


“I still have many things to tell you, but you can’t bear them now.�


“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told “

That's right, He didn't say anything about it according to the scriptures.

And yet the first Church and every Christian denomination for the next thousand years believed and taught the immorality of contraception – including our Jewish brothers and sisters. You should find that fascinating. It wasn’t only the Catholic Church who taught this – every Christian church even after the Protestant Reformation taught this – until around 1930. Soooooooo apparently all of Christendom derived and saw this teaching in Scripture. Did Scripture change in the 1930’s? Was there new public revelation I am unaware of?

Back then, kids weren't that expensive like they are now. Back then, grown men married 12 year olds. Men don't do that now in our society.

Many today see big houses, flat screen t.v.’s, annual vacations, two cars, even college educations and private schools as needs. Children do not require more food or clothing today then they did 2000 years ago. And the fact that people get married later today than they use to actually makes it less likely that they would have huge families if not using contraception.

The worldview today paints children as these huge expenses that will suck our time and energy and shouts to us that we need our “me time’�. This mentality was not always present. It goes to show how a culture’s worldview can affect how we see children. Do we see their value? Do we see them as blessings? Or do we tell the 20 something that got pregnant that she’s ruined her life with another ‘mouth to feed’.

The Church’s view values life and recognizes God’s beautiful gift of sex for the blessing that it is.

That's my personal opinion.

Yes it is and it is based on anti-Catholic rhetoric and continues to be perpetuated by some.

Quote:
Today it is extremely irresponsible to bring a child into the world when one cannot afford it and the child lives in poverty.



RightReason wrote:

Then wouldn’t it be extremely irresponsible to engage in sexual activity if one was not prepared to be a parent? No contraception is 100% effective. If you are having sex, you better realize you could be creating a new life – another human being.

What is irresponsible (not unlike bulimia) is to want the pleasure from engaging in some behavior, but not accept the natural consequences that occur from doing so.


My personal belief is that if one falls pregnant even if one used contraceptives, then they should see the baby to term and give it up for adoption unless there are medical reasons.

Wonderful and yet statistics show when contraception fails, people are angry and think since they did not plan or want a child they do not have to take responsibility for the pregnancy or they think taking responsibility is now seeking an abortion. Boyfriends and husbands leave. That is the contraceptive mentality of our times.

Isn't it better for people to take preventative measures against conception than fall pregnant time after time and the child suffers poverty?

Jesus was poor. Did He suffer poverty? There are many reasons people cite contraceptive use. Some say they just want to enjoy sexual relations without commitment, some say they are too young, too old, trying to get ahead in their career, want to finish their education, have a vacation planned, don’t want to lose their perfect body they’ve worked so hard on, believe the world is overpopulated, have read children are “better off� if spaced 3 years a part, already have a boy and a girl – their family is ‘complete’, their spouse does not want one, they wouldn’t be able to send their kids to the “best schools�, etc.

Think of the consequences of not limiting children. Is it fair to bring children into the world when the parents cannot afford them? Would you prefer that? Jobs can become scarce because they are two many children. There is overcrowding in schools where the children suffer because they don't get enough attention from their teachers.

More children would mean more people capable of building more schools. The “over population� scares have been debunked. In fact, now many countries are experiencing the problems of underpopulation.

You also fail to understand that not using contraception does not mean a woman would be pregnant every 9 months. That is simply not the way it works. God designed our bodies a certain way. A woman only ovulates once a month AND for a limited number of years. Most people now do not get married until late 20’s, even early 30’s and fertility drastically decreases in women after the age of 35. By the age 40, it is difficult for a woman to get pregnant. Breast feeding is also by design a natural fertility suppressant, often creating a natural spacing of 2-3 years between children.

I have been married for 24 years and have never used contraception. All of my children are 2-3 years a part. THAT is how life works, but you would never know this beautiful design of Our Lord in society today. Instead, the culture puts undue pressure on women to go on “the pill� – forget about it not being the safest or best thing for us – it is your duty the culture shouts! How sad. Do they care about women and children? It could be argued that contraception has actually been one of the biggest oppressions of women in our society. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood’s original mission was to “eradicate the world of the weak and feeble minded� Jesus’ views are far from those creators of contraception.

Is not remaining abstinent defying what God in Genesis said, "Go forth and multiply?" Is it not against nature to refrain from sex? Isn't it preventing procreation?

Scripture tells us Jesus says, not all are called to marriage. It is only common sense that if one plans to accept and engage in God’s gift of sex to us, then he/she do so without blocking/thwarting God’s design.

The bulimic wants the pleasure of eating, but does not want to accept the natural consequences that occur from eating (the calories), so he/she vomits after indulging. We call such behavior disordered. We recognize it is not right. We can know as Christians such behavior is not pleasing to God. Contraception is tantamount to eating and then vomiting. It is also based on unfounded fears and selfish motivation that we become slaves too.

People think God is some draconian people ready to condemn the world because of rules god is not unreasonable

This person does not think God is some draconian. What is unreasonable is thinking the Church’s beautiful teaching on sex, love, marriage, and children is somehow to be seen as some draconian rule. It is the very opposite. God wants us to be free. The truth sets us free. I encourage you to look into what the Church actually teaches. You will discover how and why we can know it comes from Christ.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 49 by Claire Evans]

According to the story of Onan, it was disobedience that angered God, not the fact that he used the withdrawal method.

You mean according to you. I already discussed earlier in other threads how and why we know Onan’s sin was more than disobedience.

****************

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control

Since we are going by man-made laws as in Deuteronomy, we should consider other prohibitions:

Israelite priests (kohanim) are not allowed to marry:

divorcees[8]
converts

Agree with this?

Non kosher foods are forbidden. Do you eat non kosher food like eating eating a chicken drumstick?

What about fruit that is not yet three years old like grapes? That's forbidden.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut

Why should they automatically be right?

Because Christ established His Church and said, “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven� “thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church� the church is “the pillar and foundation of truth� I will remain with my church always and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it�

^ That’s why!

That doesn't explain why there was so much discord in the early church and even now! We have various denominations because of the many things Christians disagree with.

Did they base their beliefs on what Jesus said about contraceptives?

The Church based her teachings on Scripture and what Christ taught. Christ’s Church has the authority to speak to God’s people.


“I still have many things to tell you, but you can’t bear them now.�


“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told “

That doesn't mean the Church Fathers did not have their own opinions which weren't congruent with what Jesus said. They weren't infallible.

That's right, He didn't say anything about it according to the scriptures.

And yet the first Church and every Christian denomination for the next thousand years believed and taught the immorality of contraception – including our Jewish brothers and sisters. You should find that fascinating. It wasn’t only the Catholic Church who taught this – every Christian church even after the Protestant Reformation taught this – until around 1930. Soooooooo apparently all of Christendom derived and saw this teaching in Scripture. Did Scripture change in the 1930’s? Was there new public revelation I am unaware of?

You appear to place too much emphasis on what Christians think is right instead of thinking takes into account people's circumstances.

Even the early Church bent their own beliefs:

"The decision of the Council, called the Apostolic Decree,[15] was that most Mosaic Law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile converts, in order to make it easier for Jewish-Christian proselytizers to induce gentile prospects to join the Christian movement.[16] The Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship".[17] There is a view that 'strangled' and 'blood' in the texts refer to foreskin conditions - paraphimosis and ruptured frenulum, respectively.[18] Beginning with Augustine of Hippo,[19] many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars[20] reject the connection to Noahide Law[21] and instead see Leviticus 17-18[22] as the basis.

The Decree is one of the first acts differentiating the Church from its Jewish roots,[23] though a similar dispute was taking place at the same time within Judaism, but which came to a contrary conclusion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcis ... ristianity

Eventually the Church abandoned circumcision. What right did they have to abandon the OT law?

Back then, kids weren't that expensive like they are now. Back then, grown men married 12 year olds. Men don't do that now in our society.

Many today see big houses, flat screen t.v.’s, annual vacations, two cars, even college educations and private schools as needs. Children do not require more food or clothing today then they did 2000 years ago. And the fact that people get married later today than they use to actually makes it less likely that they would have huge families if not using contraception.

The worldview today paints children as these huge expenses that will suck our time and energy and shouts to us that we need our “me time’�. This mentality was not always present. It goes to show how a culture’s worldview can affect how we see children. Do we see their value? Do we see them as blessings? Or do we tell the 20 something that got pregnant that she’s ruined her life with another ‘mouth to feed’.

The Church’s view values life and recognizes God’s beautiful gift of sex for the blessing that it is.

Kids have school uniforms, sports clothing and shoes! Do you know how expensive clothes and shoes are? Perhaps things are different where you are but where I'm from, kids from large families who are poor often go to school barefoot and relying on feeding schemes. This can be avoided if mothers used contraceptives to avoid children she cannot afford.

There are people in war torn countries who bring children into the world when they are busying being persecuted and their children starve. Would it not have been better for the child if that child wasn't born at all?

That's my personal opinion.

Yes it is and it is based on anti-Catholic rhetoric and continues to be perpetuated by some.

It might have something to do with how unreasonable it is to frown upon contraceptives.

Quote:
Today it is extremely irresponsible to bring a child into the world when one cannot afford it and the child lives in poverty.



RightReason wrote:

Then wouldn’t it be extremely irresponsible to engage in sexual activity if one was not prepared to be a parent? No contraception is 100% effective. If you are having sex, you better realize you could be creating a new life – another human being.

What is irresponsible (not unlike bulimia) is to want the pleasure from engaging in some behavior, but not accept the natural consequences that occur from doing so.


My personal belief is that if one falls pregnant even if one used contraceptives, then they should see the baby to term and give it up for adoption unless there are medical reasons.

Wonderful and yet statistics show when contraception fails, people are angry and think since they did not plan or want a child they do not have to take responsibility for the pregnancy or they think taking responsibility is now seeking an abortion. Boyfriends and husbands leave. That is the contraceptive mentality of our times.

What is the lesser of two evils? Do you believe this world is black and white? The point is that people behave responsibly when they take contraceptives to avoid an unwanted birth. What they do about an unwanted pregnancy because of the failure of the contraceptives is a different matter. In my opinion, it is not right to have an abortion in this case. There is always the alternative of adoption.

Can we expect a rape victim to keep a baby because the rapist did not wear a condom? If we are to hold onto the all-life-is-sacred belief, then she should see the baby to term, which I believe is very unfair. Would it not be kinder to abort a severely deformed foetus or allow it to live suffering?

Isn't it better for people to take preventative measures against conception than fall pregnant time after time and the child suffers poverty?

Jesus was poor. Did He suffer poverty? There are many reasons people cite contraceptive use. Some say they just want to enjoy sexual relations without commitment, some say they are too young, too old, trying to get ahead in their career, want to finish their education, have a vacation planned, don’t want to lose their perfect body they’ve worked so hard on, believe the world is overpopulated, have read children are “better off� if spaced 3 years a part, already have a boy and a girl – their family is ‘complete’, their spouse does not want one, they wouldn’t be able to send their kids to the “best schools�, etc.

Jesus didn't have children. Big difference.

Think of the consequences of not limiting children. Is it fair to bring children into the world when the parents cannot afford them? Would you prefer that? Jobs can become scarce because they are two many children. There is overcrowding in schools where the children suffer because they don't get enough attention from their teachers.

More children would mean more people capable of building more schools. The “over population� scares have been debunked. In fact, now many countries are experiencing the problems of underpopulation.

What? Children first need an education before they can build schools. Because of overcrowding in classrooms, many child underachieve. In the poorer areas in my country, they have to be taught under trees. School clothes have to be donated to them. They need the schools to feed them.

Don't compare wealthy countries, which aren't typically overpopulated, to poorer countries which do have overpopulation.

You also fail to understand that not using contraception does not mean a woman would be pregnant every 9 months. That is simply not the way it works. God designed our bodies a certain way. A woman only ovulates once a month AND for a limited number of years. Most people now do not get married until late 20’s, even early 30’s and fertility drastically decreases in women after the age of 35. By the age 40, it is difficult for a woman to get pregnant. Breast feeding is also by design a natural fertility suppressant, often creating a natural spacing of 2-3 years between children.

Obviously a woman doesn't get pregnant every 9 months.

I have been married for 24 years and have never used contraception. All of my children are 2-3 years a part. THAT is how life works, but you would never know this beautiful design of Our Lord in society today. Instead, the culture puts undue pressure on women to go on “the pill� – forget about it not being the safest or best thing for us – it is your duty the culture shouts! How sad. Do they care about women and children? It could be argued that contraception has actually been one of the biggest oppressions of women in our society. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood’s original mission was to “eradicate the world of the weak and feeble minded� Jesus’ views are far from those creators of contraception.

I'm afraid you are just not being practical in a world which is much different than it was 2000 years ago.

Is not remaining abstinent defying what God in Genesis said, "Go forth and multiply?" Is it not against nature to refrain from sex? Isn't it preventing procreation?

Scripture tells us Jesus says, not all are called to marriage. It is only common sense that if one plans to accept and engage in God’s gift of sex to us, then he/she do so without blocking/thwarting God’s design.

Jesus appears to contradict the God in the OT in Genesis 2:


18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.�

And

Deuteronomy 25:5-10New International Version (NIV)

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Furthermore:

1. The Pattern in Rabbinic Literature
Obligation to Marry
The basic statement on the religious obligation of every Jewish
male.to marry is found in m. Yebam. 6:6:
No man may abstain from keeping the law Be fruitful and
multiply, unless he already has children: according to the School
of Shammai, two sons; according to the School of Hillel, a son
and a daughter, for it is written, Male and female created he
them. . . . The duty to be fruitful and multiply falls on the man
but not on the woman. R. Johanan b. Baroka says: Of them both
it is written, And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be
fruitful and mu1tiply.l

https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/car ... 7-2-02.pdf

The bulimic wants the pleasure of eating, but does not want to accept the natural consequences that occur from eating (the calories), so he/she vomits after indulging. We call such behavior disordered. We recognize it is not right. We can know as Christians such behavior is not pleasing to God. Contraception is tantamount to eating and then vomiting. It is also based on unfounded fears and selfish motivation that we become slaves too.

It is for God to judge, not man. It is not a black and white world.

People think God is some draconian people ready to condemn the world because of rules god is not unreasonable

This person does not think God is some draconian. What is unreasonable is thinking the Church’s beautiful teaching on sex, love, marriage, and children is somehow to be seen as some draconian rule. It is the very opposite. God wants us to be free. The truth sets us free. I encourage you to look into what the Church actually teaches. You will discover how and why we can know it comes from Christ.

The truth does set us free, yes, but God most certainly does not frown upon contraceptives. He is not unreasonable. Life is very different today than it was 2000 years ago.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Since we are going by man-made laws as in Deuteronomy, we should consider other prohibitions:

The story of Onan is in Genesis not Deuteronomy. Also, Christ came to fulfill the law not abolish it. Just because something is from the OT doesn’t mean it is no more – nor does it mean all laws of the OT still apply today. Parts of Mosaic law were based on culture and time period and attempts to set a people a part from others. In those situations those laws would no longer be applicable. Of course, the NT did not do away with the moral law. Man has and always will be subject to the moral law. So, although it is no longer a violation to eat shell fish, it is still a violation to steal. Mosaic law vs. Moral law – see the difference?



[qutoe]That doesn't explain why there was so much discord in the early church and even now! We have various denominations because of the many things Christians disagree with. [/quote]

Exactly! The only think that makes sense is Christ established One, Holy, Apostolic Church. The only way to guarantee one message, insure unity, know you are getting it right would be to have remained with Christ’s Church (who He promised to remain with and guide in all truth). Once one leaves Christ’s Church, then he/she is basically left with private/personal interpretation which has no authority and subject to deception.

That doesn't mean the Church Fathers did not have their own opinions which weren't congruent with what Jesus said. They weren't infallible.

No, they weren’t infalible, but that is the beauty of Christ establishing One Church. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from erring on her teachings on matters of faith and morals. The Church is clearly made up of fallible men – as God’s appointed leaders always were. That of course did not mean God’s people shouldn’t have listened to God speaking through Moses, or David, etc.

RightReason wrote:

And yet the first Church and every Christian denomination for the next thousand years believed and taught the immorality of contraception – including our Jewish brothers and sisters. You should find that fascinating. It wasn’t only the Catholic Church who taught this – every Christian church even after the Protestant Reformation taught this – until around 1930. Soooooooo apparently all of Christendom derived and saw this teaching in Scripture. Did Scripture change in the 1930’s? Was there new public revelation I am unaware of?


You appear to place too much emphasis on what Christians think is right instead of thinking takes into account people's circumstances.

Huh? That is what I’m afraid you are doing. Truth doesn’t change. Just because many Christian religions today no longer teach the immorality of contraception does not mean it no longer applies. Many Christian groups today have caved and fallen into the fashions of the day. They have adopted pagan ways – just like was a temptation when Christ first established His Church. Many Christian groups today no longer think pornography or masturbation sinful. Many no longer view sex outside of marriage sinful. Many no longer view same sex unions sinful, or even think divorce is wrong. And yet EVERY Christian religion believed and taught these as sins. Did adultery use to be wrong, but can now be overlooked if one examines the situation? Did sex outside of marriage use to be considered sinful, but now if the couple loves each other – that’s what matters?

The Church has no problem understanding human nature and why people might do the things they do, but she loves those people too much to let them think what they are doing is ok.

As G.K. Chesterton said, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right, I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�

It isn’t doing anyone any favors to let a person think they are justified in their sin. You are actually doing the person a disservice. The Church recognizes this and truly cares about her people. It would be easy and the popular thing to be pro gay marriage and pro contraception. The difficult part is teaching these hard truths. Where every other Christian group has failed, the Catholic Church remains strong and courageous – perhaps Christ remaining with His Church has something to do with that!

Even the early Church bent their own beliefs:

"The decision of the Council, called the Apostolic Decree,[15] was that most Mosaic Law, including the requirement for circumcision of males

I already explained the difference between Mosaic Law and the moral law.

Kids have school uniforms, sports clothing and shoes! Do you know how expensive clothes and shoes are? Perhaps things are different where you are but where I'm from, kids from large families who are poor often go to school barefoot and relying on feeding schemes. This can be avoided if mothers used contraceptives to avoid children she cannot afford.

I have 8 children and am well aware of the price of clothes and shoes. Of course, one good winter coat can get passed on through multiple children. The same tank of gas gets 8 people somewhere that gets only 3 from a different family. Garage sales are awesome! As are hand me downs from family and friends.

There are people in war torn countries who bring children into the world when they are busying being persecuted and their children starve. Would it not have been better for the child if that child wasn't born at all?

This is a sad mentality. Try telling those in a poor country that they have no right to have children. Talk about civil rights injustice. A child may be their greatest joy, but because of their circumstances you think they don’t deserve that?

It is so wrong to see human beings in this way. Such a mentality carries over into everything. It’s this exact mentality that causes one to say, “I’m having a Down Syndrome baby, well, what kind of life will that child lead, it would be better if the child were never born� “Grandma can no longer walk and has become quite a financial drain on the family, let us put her out to pasture.�

It might have something to do with how unreasonable it is to frown upon contraceptives.

Why is it unreasonable? I see the very opposite – to be pro contraception -- as unreasonable. And obviously all of Christendom for almost 2000 years agreed with me. What I would suggest as unreasonable is things like China’s one child policy or countries where mass sterilization is encouraged. Wow! How many children is too many? And who gets to decide? Are children for the rich?

Can we expect a rape victim to keep a baby because the rapist did not wear a condom? If we are to hold onto the all-life-is-sacred belief, then she should see the baby to term, which I believe is very unfair. Would it not be kinder to abort a severely deformed foetus or allow it to live suffering?

The baby inside the woman that was raped is still part her. Should a child be blamed for the sin of his father? That child has a right to life. There are some beautiful testimonies of exactly what you describe – children born from women who were raped and they always say how grateful they were that their mother did not abort them and gave them the gift of life. It is actually odd for me when people can’t see this.

As for a severely deformed fetus? Why take life into your own hands? Even parents who have had children who have lived for only a few days are grateful for having known that child. Again, your worldview is truly something I can’t wrap my head around. Why would you want to live in a world where all life is not sacred? What makes you think a human being has to be perfect and perfect according to who? You do realize the love given and received even from a severely deformed human being, right?

Jesus didn't have children. Big difference.

Huh? Mary could have said, “no thanks� when the angel told her she was going to be the mother of Jesus. She could have said, I’m not married and I have no money� But instead she said, “Let it be done unto me according to thy will�. She said yes to life. She didn’t consider the economic or social challenges that lied ahead. She trusted God.

What? Children first need an education before they can build schools. Because of overcrowding in classrooms, many child underachieve. In the poorer areas in my country, they have to be taught under trees. School clothes have to be donated to them. They need the schools to feed them.

And we are all called to help one another. This is what churches, religions, and schools do best. People of faith donate their time and money to help. The Catholic Church is the world’s largest charitable organization in the world. Let us not take away a person’s hope and joy. Why don’t you ask those in underdeveloped countries what kind of help they would like. I think they would choose help with food, clothing, and education over contraception and sterilization.

Don't compare wealthy countries, which aren't typically overpopulated, to poorer countries which do have overpopulation.

Why not? Both are different sides of the same coin. Both situations are problematic and contraception is not the solution for either.

RightReason wrote:

I have been married for 24 years and have never used contraception. All of my children are 2-3 years a part. THAT is how life works, but you would never know this beautiful design of Our Lord in society today. Instead, the culture puts undue pressure on women to go on “the pill� – forget about it not being the safest or best thing for us – it is your duty the culture shouts! How sad. Do they care about women and children? It could be argued that contraception has actually been one of the biggest oppressions of women in our society. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood’s original mission was to “eradicate the world of the weak and feeble minded� Jesus’ views are far from those creators of contraception.


I'm afraid you are just not being practical in a world which is much different than it was 2000 years ago.

On the contrary. Human beings are the same. I think we have much bigger problems when we feel the need to reduce the human population. Again, truth doesn’t change. It was wrong 2000 years ago to steal and it is wrong today. It was wrong 2000 years ago to practice contraception and it is wrong today. It is simply acknowledgment of the natural moral order.

The truth does set us free, yes, but God most certainly does not frown upon contraceptives.

I am afraid this once again is your speculation in regards to God and it is not supported in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or natural law. Again, I encourage you to read more about the Church’s beautiful teaching on this. It is beautiful and reasonable.