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 KenRU]

Quote:
Please educate yourself.

Thanks, I believe I just have. It's been a while since I brushed up on my Catholic teachings.

Hopefully, you learned something too.

I’ve learned what I suspected all along – you have no clue about what the Church actually teaches and you continue to credit her with false claims. Not only that you got a great deal of non church stuff wrong too. <sigh> Where to begin . . .

I don’t think you understand the full risks involved in the method you espouse:

I don’t think you understand you didn’t even get correct the method I espoused. Once again, it is not the rhythm method that you described and argued against. The method I discussed, NFP, is science based. It also, as I cited earlier, receives a 99% effective rate if properly used. That is the same percentage given to the pill, condoms, IUD, and diaphragm and even higher percentage then things like the sponge, female condom, and spermicides get.

The efficacy rates of FAB methods vary widely; like all other methods, they depend on how well couples use them.

Yep, like ALL methods, they depend on how well couples use them.

Quote:
Also, your statistics aren’t the whole picture and are NOT the facts. I have some statistics too . . .

If used according to teaching and instructions, natural family planning methods are up to 99 per cent effective, depending on which method is used.

And yet the article and data from 2015 says failure rates are higher than contaceptives.

That would be false. Your facts aren’t so factual see link below . . .

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

That means that the table on "First Year Contraceptive Failure Rates" is of limited utility compared with clinical studies such as the 2007 German study that found a 0.4 percent rate of pregnancy among couples practicing the symptothermal method of Natural Family Planning correctly.

www.fpa.org.uk/contraception-help/natur ... y-planning

WHAT "FACTS ON CONTRACEPTIVE USE" DOESN'T TELL US
The table provides separate numbers for "Typical use" rates for every form of contraception—except for the four forms of periodic abstinence, which it lumps together into a single "Typical use" rate. And that's where the problem begins.

"Periodic abstinence (calendar)" is not a form of Natural Family Planning; ovulation method, symptothermal, and post-ovulation are. The Guttmacher Institute acknowledges this in the first table ("Contraceptive Method Choice") by separating out "Periodic abstinence (calendar)" and "Periodic abstinence (natural family planning)." But when it comes time to discuss "First Year Contraceptive Failure Rates," the Guttmacher Institute tosses the calendar (rhythm method) of periodic abstinence in with the three forms of Natural Family Planning, and lists a "Typical use" failure rate of 25.3 percent for "Periodic abstinence."

Some might smell a rat here, but let's give the Guttmacher Institute the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps none of the three studies from which they gleaned their "Typical use" rates separated the rhythm method from Natural Family Planning. If that is true, however, the very least that the Guttmacher Institute should have done was provide a footnote explaining the lack of "Typical use" rates for each form of periodic abstinence.

Why don't we normally hear such high numbers from the advocates of artificial contraception? When arguing against Natural Family Planning, advocates of artificial contraception generally attack proponents of NFP for providing perfect-use failure rates, while they themselves provide perfect-use, not typical-use, failure rates for artificial contraception. But as the figures provided by Guttmacher's own "Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States" show, when we compare apples to apples—"Perfect use" to "Perfect use"—the range of failure rates between the most commonly used forms of artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning is very small.

Because "Facts" attempts to obfuscate the numbers by lumping the "rhythm method" in with scientific methods of NFP, readers need to look elsewhere for reliable typical-use data on NFP. The various organizations listed on the Natural Family Planning Resources page keep track of such studies and update their websites frequently with the latest information. Their numbers, usually stated as success (rather than failure) rates, generally range from 95-98 percent in "Typical use," and over 99 percent in "Perfect use."

https://www.thoughtco.com/nfp-works-gut ... ute-542175

See full article to understand better why your facts are inaccurate and misleading. Once you acknowledge that, then we can go on to see why then in addition to NFP being just as effective as most other forms of contraception we could discuss why it is the better choice because it is healthier, less intrusive, improves intimacy and communication within a relationship, and is free! That is the full picture you dismiss.

Quote:
With correct use, the failure rate of NFP is similar to those of more commonly accepted hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods.

False: the article states the numbers may be close in some situations, but they are not similar:

These perfect and typical use failure rates are only slightly higher to those found with other contraceptives.

But make no mistake, even under a comparison of “perfect� use, they are still less effective.

Incorrect. See my link above to understand why.

Quote:
The symptothermal method, which monitors basal body temperature, cervical secretions, cervical position, and cycle patterns to predict periods of fertility, has been proven effective

But not as effective as contraceptive use.

Incorrect And they have been shown to have no health risks.

Quote:
So as you see, it is the Church who recognizes the facts. FACT: the inherent nature of the sexual act has a procreative function.

For many people the sex act is also one of pleasure and an expression of love and caring.

STRAWMAN! Please be fair. The Church has always acknowledged and taught the pleasurable aspect of the sexual act. The Church teaches the sexual act is unitive in nature – having both a pleasurable and procreative function.

And this is where you and I part ways. You endorse a method that is simply less effective at preventing a pregnancy (and one that offers less opportunities for a married couple to express their love sexually) than if one were to use contraceptive methods.

Absolutely false. I endorse a method that is just as effective and even more so than many other forms of contraception AND does not hinder in anyway the couple being able to express their sexual love. In fact, like I showed, research indicates couples who practice NFP report improved marital relations and intimacy. You also continue to dismiss NFP is not harmful in anyway to the couple, the woman’s body, and costs nothing!

As you say: That is called acknowledging the science.

I certainly do.

Quote:
As it is moral, healthier, not only just as effective as some other forms of birth control, but studies show it also is good for relationships and marriage. So, as you can see the facts actually do support my advice.

Healthier? That is quite debatable. But your opinion here is noted.

It isn’t an opinion. It is fact. The most common birth control method of choice is the pill. Have you read the side effects on the label? Are you aware the World Health Organization classifies the pill as highly carcinogenic. The patch, etc. also come with health risks.

There is no explicit passage that I am aware of in the bible (feel free to quote one for me if I am wrong) that condemns contraceptive use. It can be intuited but it is not expressed openly.

Hence tradition is necessary to find out what others have taught and supposed.

So your point is what? Why do you insist on Scripture when you yourself know that isn’t how Christianity works? All of Christianity is based on Tradition. The first Church is what is considered Sacred Tradition. I’m not sure why you accuse me or someone from following Tradition as if that is inferior or some slight or not exactly what we are supposed to do? Again, I don’t really think you get this. No where in the Bible does it say we are only to listen to the Bible. Infact the Bible tells us to listen to the church (Tradition).

The point, as you say, it is unknown what happens to the babies, yet the church felt the need to offer hope. You may not like it, but it is a positional change.

How is it a positional change? You really don’t get it. The Church did not teach one thing and then change her teaching. She never taught unbaptized babies go to heaven or hell. Only those with an ax to grind grasp at straws at things like this.

Quote:
Since when has the Catholic Church ever downplayed the possibility of pregnancy in the sexual act?

They don’t. But they do argue the following: The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative.

In other words, sex for pleasure (even in a loving marriage) is not moral. Which was my point, that the church does not believe in sex for pleasure or an expression of love.

Absolutely false. Did you learn anything correctly when you were Catholic? The Church teaches, as you posted above, that every act must be unitive? Do you know what that means? It means the sexual act is unitive (pleasure AND procreative) in nature. The Church does not take out the pleasure part of the unitive nature, so why do you?

Quote:
She teaches and proclaims the very opposite.

I agree, the church teaches that sex should only be for procreation.

Good grief, my boy. You couldn’t be more wrong. I’m so sorry you have been so misinformed regarding what the Church actually teaches.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Thought you might find this interesting. Some of your comments sounded very similar to those used by the first touters of the pill. . . .

https://rewire.news/multimedia/podcast/ ... ill-trial/

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 60 by RightReason]

RightReason

I’ve no wish to derail the thread more than I already have, so I will make this as brief and concise as possible.

Contraceptive vs NFP:
You quoted/linked to the AFP website – the editorial section to assert your point:

Your link: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html

That very same website was running editorials debating the very merits of what we were discussing. So, I found the competing article which argued against your point.

I may have failed to link this before, and if I did, I apologize: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html


I suggest you start a thread on this topic in the Science and Religion subsection. This subject really is a tangent at this point, and is best explored elsewhere. I’m sure it will generate some interesting posts. I will eagerly follow it if you do start one.

I see no reason to continue going back and forth on this point any longer.


Unbaptized Babies
No, no axe to grind. The church’s position on this subject means very little to me. But the point was that many Catholics (in my family and my religious circles back in the day) were pretty saddened and confused over the subject, and it clearly wasn’t just a small matter. After all, the church decided to look into it further (as the link I submitted shows). Why was the church’s position unclear on the matter?

I grant you the positional change of “we don’t know� to “we don’t know but are hopeful� isn’t a large one, but it is still one, imo. You don’t have to agree, of course.

But let’s not quibble over what is “doctrine� or not. The Catholic church has changed its stance on some issues – and that was my point about tradition.

Link: https://www.quora.com/Have-any-of-the-C ... en-changed


Sex for Pleasure
Perhaps we were talking past each other here, but my point was that the church does not morally approve of sex for pleasure ONLY (even in a loving marriage). Do you agree?
I thought that point of mine was clear, if not, I apologize.

Your response here seems disingenuous:

Absolutely false. Did you learn anything correctly when you were Catholic? The Church teaches, as you posted above, that every act must be unitive?

The passage that I quoted reads: Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative.

AND. Not OR. Meaning sex for a married couple cannot be done morally if reproduction is hindered or blocked. That rules out varying forms of sex and all forms of contraceptive use

Correct?

Do you know what that means? It means the sexual act is unitive (pleasure AND procreative) in nature.

Exactly. AND, and not OR. Hopefully my point is now clear, and you will agree that the Catholic Church teaches that sex (even in a marriage) for pleasure ONLY is not moral.

The Church does not take out the pleasure part of the unitive nature, so why do you?

Because that is the point you seem very reluctant to admit. Which was my point very early in our exchange. Sex for pleasure (only) is not considered moral by the Catholic Church – even when performed in a marriage.

-all the best

[Claire Evans]

So I ask you again: why does the Pope refuse to punish paedophiles?

Think you once again have some misinformation.

This was from 3 days ago:
http://www.pagadiandiocese.org/2017/09/ ... he-church/

I'm just going to condense this and address the important bits. Of course the Pope is going to say he will have zero tolerance. Yet actions speak louder than words.

Matthew 24:

Signs of the End of the Age
3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?� 4

Then Jesus answered further on:

19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!

It will be so terrible that He implies it would be best if those children had not been born.

Do you know the hell on earth we are about to face? How can someone bring a child into this world when they know the Anti-Christ is coming into power and the powers of hell will be unleashed?

So, you believe we are currently experiencing end times and people shouldn’t be having children right now because the anti Christ is imminent?

I think Jesus thought it best if those children weren't born at all.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was not referring to Down Syndrome children at all. They can be achievers and not suffer physically.

The majority of children with Down Syndrome suffer physically with many heart and lung problems as well as increased number of many other health issues that children without Down Syndrome don’t have to deal with.

That is true but I am thinking of those who have no quality of life at all. Life would be unbearable.

I don't think you'd like to be born into an existence where you are in constant pain.

Who are these children born into constant pain? I can assure you, the majority of people that use contraception are not doing so because if they were to conceive their child would be born into constant pain. That is illogical hyperbole.

I see you didn't notice that I was drifting towards abortion referring to a child in constant pain. Obviously one doesn't use contraceptives just because they are afraid of producing a child who may be in constant pain. However, some couples do because they are genetic carriers of a crippling disease and don't want to risk passing it on to their kids.

Also, we shall know who is really Christ-committed by how the world sees them:

James 4:4

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

John 15:18

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.


The WIN/Gallup survey also found that the Pope is more popular than any other world leader: he scored well ahead of Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and David Cameron.

http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/0 ... among-glob...

Your entire post shows your Catholic hatred and yet you attempt to show how the world loves the Catholic Church – LOL! You can’t have it both ways. Your argument fails because the Catholic Church has certainly had its share of persecution and hatred. In fact, today many in the world hate the Catholic Church because she stands up for things like the immorality of contraception and same sex unions.

Yet, despite many not agreeing with the Church, the world must also acknowledge the Church stands up for the oppressed, the marginalized, and the most vulnerable among us from conception to natural death. So whether they like to admit it or not, the world must recognize the contributions of the Catholic Church and her courage to stand up for what is right and good. People are attracted to Truth.

I think the Catholic Church is hated because it's riddled with paedophiles and wealth and it's hypocrisy. Here's an example:


Catholic bank owned pill shares

"A Roman Catholic bank in Germany has apologised after admitting it bought stocks in defence, tobacco and birth control companies.
Der Spiegel newspaper discovered the bank had invested 580,000 euros (£495,310, $826,674) in British arms company BAE Systems.
It also invested 160,000 euros in American birth control pill maker Wyeth and 870,000 euros in tobacco companies.
The bank apologised for behaviour "not in keeping with ethical standards".



Back in 1968, The Vatican had shares in Sorono, the largest Italian manufacturer of birth control products.

"Nogara [financial advisor to the Vatican] was a controversial figure with the Roman Curia because many of his investments were perceived to violate the church's doctrines. For example, Nogara purchased a controlling share in Istituto Farmacologico Serono di Roma, Italy's largest manufacturer of birth control products.[6] Nogara also invested in Italy's munitions plants and other war industries, including direct loans to Mussolini's government prior to his invasion of Ethiopia in 1935.[7] However, Nogara was highly regarded by many cardinals for bolstering the church's finances, which had been declining since 1870."

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

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Ezi ... ny&f=false

And the Church is now bending. Sin is acceptable in some instances.


The Pope [Benedict XVI] drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection� from Aids.
While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... shift.html

Pope Francis, too!

Pope ready to lift condom ban in fight against zika

The Pope has struck a blow against the Vatican’s ban on contraception by suggesting that it could be relaxed to fight the zika virus, which is being linked to the birth of thousands of deformed babies in Latin America.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pope ... 6g7j53hhzz


The Church cannot be the authority. Look to Jesus only!

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

Contraceptive vs NFP:
You quoted/linked to the AFP website – the editorial section to assert your point:

Your link: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html

That very same website was running editorials debating the very merits of what we were discussing. So, I found the competing article which argued against your point.

Yes, there are articles arguing against NFP, and they would be misleading and often just like I mentioned in my previous post not comparing apples to apples. Those who fear NFP often have mis information, exactly like I showed you did by thinking NFP was the rhythm method.

The truth is NFP is an excellent way to avoid pregnancy if that is one’s goal. It is effective, it builds communication, improves marriages, is not intrusive, allows a woman to be have knowledge and take control of her own body, and costs nothing.

Unbaptized Babies
No, no axe to grind. The church’s position on this subject means very little to me. But the point was that many Catholics (in my family and my religious circles back in the day) were pretty saddened and confused over the subject, and it clearly wasn’t just a small matter. After all, the church decided to look into it further (as the link I submitted shows). Why was the church’s position unclear on the matter?

You can’t be serious? Well, let’s see . . . the Church doesn’t just make stuff up. What she teaches is based on what has been revealed to her. Apparently, it has not been revealed what happens to unbaptized babies. In matters like this, the Church is permitted to offer her theological views and theories about what she thinks makes sense, which she did. You claim the Church’s position was unclear, what you mean is many people were unclear of the Church’s position. Therefore, the Church felt the need to clarify. Some often wrongly view clarifications as new or changing positions/teachings. They are not. The teaching didn’t change. The Church is simply clarifying because it must have come to their attention that many are misunderstanding.

I grant you the positional change of “we don’t know� to “we don’t know but are hopeful� isn’t a large one, but it is still one, imo. You don’t have to agree, of course.

I don’t agree, nor do I think many others would either, unless, like I said, they are looking for something to criticize the Church about.

But let’s not quibble over what is “doctrine� or not. The Catholic church has changed its stance on some issues – and that was my point about tradition.

Oh, let’s quibble, because doctrine is doctrine NOT “doctrine�. If what you meant by doctrine is “doctrine� then you are the one who is unclear and being misleading. No one ever said the Church can’t change her position on practices and theories. Things you may be referring to are not doctrines of the Church, rather typically disciplines.

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

No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-the-chu ... -doctrines

Sex for Pleasure
Perhaps we were talking past each other here, but my point was that the church does not morally approve of sex for pleasure ONLY (even in a loving marriage). Do you agree?
I thought that point of mine was clear, if not, I apologize.

Well, I didn’t think it clear because you phrased it as the Church claiming sex is for procreation only. Which is NOT what the Church says. Also, even claiming as you now are attempting in your second go at it – “the church does not morally approve of sex for pleasure ONLY� is not exactly the full picture either. What the Church teaches is one cannot separate the unitive nature of the sexual act. Clearly, a married couple can have sex that is pleasurable that does not result in pregnancy and the Church is A-ok with this.

You are finally getting a little closer in understanding with this comment of yours:

sex for a married couple cannot be done morally if reproduction is hindered or blocked.

So to clarify even a little further, a couple cannot purposely separate the unitive nature of the marital act.

That rules out varying forms of sex and all forms of contraceptive use

Correct?

It rules out something that intentionally removes the procreative part of the unitive nature of that specific sexual act.

Quote:
Do you know what that means? It means the sexual act is unitive (pleasure AND procreative) in nature.

Exactly. AND, and not OR. Hopefully my point is now clear, and you will agree that the Catholic Church teaches that sex (even in a marriage) for pleasure ONLY is not moral.

I do not agree, as it is incomplete. I have lots of sex with my husband when I am pregnant. All of those acts cannot result in pregnancy because I am already pregnant, making them for pleasure only. The reason the acts are not immoral is because we are doing nothing to separate the unitive nature of the act. It just happens to be that at that time, the nature of the act does not allow for procreation. The nature of the act also does not allow for procreation during infertile times of the month, the nature of the act also does not allow for procreation once a woman has reached menopause. These are all part of the natural occurrence of our reproductive bodies. It isn’t immoral for a 55 year old woman to have sex. It is immoral to do something to intentionally separate/change/thwart/block/alter the inherent nature of the sexual act. As you can see, for this reason, I find it inaccurate to claim the Church teaches that sex for pleasure is immoral. Hope this helps.

Quote:
The Church does not take out the pleasure part of the unitive nature, so why do you?

Because that is the point you seem very reluctant to admit. Which was my point very early in our exchange. Sex for pleasure (only) is not considered moral by the Catholic Church – even when performed in a marriage.

Wrong. See above.

-all the best

You too.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 63 by Claire Evans]

I'm just going to condense this and address the important bits. Of course the Pope is going to say he will have zero tolerance. Yet actions speak louder than words.

And what actions would that be? The same actions that the rest of the world took with regards to pedophilia before we knew better? People use to think and believe a pedophile could be rehabilitated. People use to also think it was better to simply not talk about these things. I think we all know a little more now.

I think Jesus thought it best if those children weren't born at all.

I think that is purely speculative and a complete misunderstanding of who Jesus is.

That is true but I am thinking of those who have no quality of life at all. Life would be unbearable.

Unbearable for who? Also, pain management these days is amazing. Also, your example is extreme and rare.

I think the Catholic Church is hated because it's riddled with paedophiles and wealth and it's hypocrisy. Here's an example:

Riddled huh? Your facts are false. Like I said, there are more pedophiles in the school system then the Catholic Church and yet do you hate our education system? There are also wealthier groups then the Catholic Church and wealth is not a reason to hate someone – talk about hypocrisy.

Catholic bank owned pill shares

What’s a Catholic bank? Your examples simply show some within the Church sin – something the Church has never denied. Your examples do not show the Church was cool with this.

The Pope [Benedict XVI] drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection� from Aids.

Ha! Another media biased headline that gets it wrong. The Church had no beef with pieces of latex. What made and still makes the use of condoms immoral is if and when they are used as contraception. The Pope gave an example of it possibly being possible for a male prostitute to use a condom if in doing so his intention was to not transmit disease to his partner. Since same sex acts are naturally non procreative, a person using a condom in a same sex act could not be guilty of contracepting. The Pope was clarifying it is not condoms, per se, that the Church is against, rather SIN is what the Church is against. If the male prostitutes use of a prophylactic when the sole intention is to “reduce the risk of infection� from AIDS, this at least would not be compounding the person’s already existing sin and immoral behavior. Do you get that? I doubt it. Most, like the headline you posted missed the point entirely and completely mis represented the Pope’s words.

The Church cannot be the authority. Look to Jesus only!

When we do we hear these words of Jesus Himself:

“He who hears you, hears me.� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 63 by Claire Evans]

I'm just going to condense this and address the important bits. Of course the Pope is going to say he will have zero tolerance. Yet actions speak louder than words.

And what actions would that be? The same actions that the rest of the world took with regards to pedophilia before we knew better? People use to think and believe a pedophile could be rehabilitated. People use to also think it was better to simply not talk about these things. I think we all know a little more now.

As in allowing these paedos to be prosecuted. Look at this:

Two years ago monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Maltese priest at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of investigating paedophile priests had given an interview saying there had been '3,000 cases of sexual abuse the last 50 years'.
He said that of these 300 cases involved allegations of 'genuine paedophilia' and most others 'concerned homosexual attraction to teenagers' and of these 3,000 cases, 600 priests had been defrocked while in other situations the offenders had been deemed 'too old' to punish but given other penalties such as bans on celebrating Mass or hearing confessions.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4uF1RDQEA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No jail time recommended.

I think Jesus thought it best if those children weren't born at all.

I think that is purely speculative and a complete misunderstanding of who Jesus is.

I think you speculate on who Jesus is. What do you think He meant when He said those words?

That is true but I am thinking of those who have no quality of life at all. Life would be unbearable.

Unbearable for who? Also, pain management these days is amazing. Also, your example is extreme and rare.

Do you remember little Charlie who the courts ruled that he must be taken off life support because he was in so much pain?

If a child has water on the brain , also known as hydrocephalus, which is picked up on a scan, would it not be better to abort?

I think the Catholic Church is hated because it's riddled with paedophiles and wealth and it's hypocrisy. Here's an example:

Riddled huh? Your facts are false. Like I said, there are more pedophiles in the school system then the Catholic Church and yet do you hate our education system? There are also wealthier groups then the Catholic Church and wealth is not a reason to hate someone – talk about hypocrisy.

I doubt there have been 3000 paedophiles in the school system.

Don't compare schools with the Catholic Church. The RCC is supposed to represent Christ.

Matthew 19:24


Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Catholic bank owned pill shares

What’s a Catholic bank? Your examples simply show some within the Church sin – something the Church has never denied. Your examples do not show the Church was cool with this.

You haven't heard of the Vatican Bank? It's sanctioned by the Vatican, of course.


Perhaps more than any other, the Vatican Bank should be expected to maintain the highest of moral standards in the way it conducts its business. However, despite its saintly links, the bank that acts on behalf of the Catholic Church has developed a reputation for corruption, scandal and mismanagement over the last few decades.

Murder, bribery, suspicious deaths, money laundering, and many other nefarious acts have been linked to the bank that is officially known as the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR).

https://www.worldfinance.com/banking/a- ... tican-bank


Laundering money for the Mafia and other Italian elite
Because of its sovereignty, the Vatican Bank has the ability to withhold account information from regulators and authorities. This secrecy has provided an excellent cover throughout history, as the Vatican moved money here and there to gain illegal profits and power.

"It was not much of a secret that for decades Italy's elite had used the IOR to hide their money," Posner wrote. "One internal review estimated there were approximately 9,300 accounts belonging to 'privileged citizens of Italy,' compared to only 2,500 that met the bank's strict rules. Some accounts were rumored to be proxies for the Spatola and Inzerillo crime families."

In the 1970s, the bank bought a stake in the Italian bank Ambrosiano, which was led by the banker Calvi. For two years, the Vatican Bank moved money around Ambrosiano's accounts, to allow banks and companies to pass financial inspection. Then they'd withdraw the money right after inspection, and keep a cut of the sum.

Ambrosiano later crashed in a massive scandal, and the Vatican paid a $244 million settlement without admitting to any wrongdoing. Calvi faced criminal charges, then died in a murder made to look like a suicide. Rumors swirled around who was responsible for Calvi's death – whispered possibilities including the Mafia and the Vatican.

In 2009, an Italian journalist published a book based on hundreds of internal documents smuggled out of the Vatican Bank that proved fake charity accounts were created and instead used for political donations, laundering, and embezzlement. Even donations to real charity accounts fell into the mix and ended up disappearing.

In 2012, four priests came under investigation for operating bank accounts for the Mafia to launder money.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gods-ban ... can-2015-2

The Pope [Benedict XVI] drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection� from Aids.

Ha! Another media biased headline that gets it wrong. The Church had no beef with pieces of latex. What made and still makes the use of condoms immoral is if and when they are used as contraception. The Pope gave an example of it possibly being possible for a male prostitute to use a condom if in doing so his intention was to not transmit disease to his partner. Since same sex acts are naturally non procreative, a person using a condom in a same sex act could not be guilty of contracepting. The Pope was clarifying it is not condoms, per se, that the Church is against, rather SIN is what the Church is against. If the male prostitutes use of a prophylactic when the sole intention is to “reduce the risk of infection� from AIDS, this at least would not be compounding the person’s already existing sin and immoral behavior. Do you get that? I doubt it. Most, like the headline you posted missed the point entirely and completely mis represented the Pope’s words.

So basically the Church feels justified to bend the rules just to prevent diseases? Since when has it the right to prevent contraception at all? The early Church Fathers never said contraception should be used to prevent diseases.

And what the Pope says vindicates my argument. He is acknowledging that there are shades of grey which I have been espousing all this time. A couple may use contraceptives to prevent a child being born with a debilitating disease which they know is a high possibility due to being carriers of the gene. How is this different from the Pope saying contraceptives should be used to prevent diseases?

The Church cannot be the authority. Look to Jesus only!

When we do we hear these words of Jesus Himself:

“He who hears you, hears me.� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�

And how is this relevant to the debate?

Also I noticed you disregarded the fact that the Vatican had shares in an Italian birth control manufacturer. Why?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

As in allowing these paedos to be prosecuted. Look at this:

Two years ago monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Maltese priest at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of investigating paedophile priests had given an interview saying there had been '3,000 cases of sexual abuse the last 50 years'.
He said that of these 300 cases involved allegations of 'genuine paedophilia' and most others 'concerned homosexual attraction to teenagers' and of these 3,000 cases, 600 priests had been defrocked while in other situations the offenders had been deemed 'too old' to punish but given other penalties such as bans on celebrating Mass or hearing confessions.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -000-cases...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

No jail time recommended.

The offending priests were defrocked and prohibited from being anywhere near children.

The Church has recognized how poorly it failed in regards to dealing with Pedophiles. There have been vile, disgusting, horrible individuals within the Church who not only engaged in such horrific deeds, but those who also turned a blind eye to others doing so. The Church now has a zero tolerance policy and is adamant about working with the police and outside authorities to prevent future tragedies.

I think you speculate on who Jesus is. What do you think He meant when He said those words?

I already explained in a previous post what I thought He meant. They were prophetic words and they meant that unfortunately there would be a time when people would think exactly how you are now in regards to children – not valuing life, considering sterilization and contraception as good and not bad and insisting the state knows better than the family. Population control efforts and even your example of little Charlie Gard is an example of this mentality.

Do you remember little Charlie who the courts ruled that he must be taken off life support because he was in so much pain?

Yes, I remember it well -- against the parents wishes. Who is the state to determine when a person lives or dies? The culture of death prevailed again in determining quality of life – how tragic.

If a child has water on the brain , also known as hydrocephalus, which is picked up on a scan, would it not be better to abort?

Nope. Just ask those who have had a hydrocephalus child.

http://www.hydroassoc.org/a-letter-of-l ... ocephalus/

http://nevergiveup-sara.blogspot.com/20 ... uture.html

“You know people think hydrocephalus, might think is all bad news. But it's not, there's a lot of reward, for example, a child who has so much against them doing so well�

“See your child as a child first and foremost and look at all the positive things, and be aware that the shunt may or may not have problems, but try and not let it take over your life. It will always be there in the back of your mind, but look on the positive�.

“Worrying continually, but you do about all of your children… you worry that they will get in with the wrong crowd and not make good of themselves. But I do worry extra about (child)�


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5060856/

I doubt there have been 3000 paedophiles in the school system.

You would and you would be wrong, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your bigotry.



The almost 90,000 cases of child sexual abuse reported each year fall far short of the actual number.


https://www.thoughtco.com/facts-about-c ... cs-3533871


About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.


https://www.nsopw.gov/en-US/Education/F ... epetrators

Sexual abuse of minors is not the province of the Catholic Church alone. About 4 percent of priests committed an act of sexual abuse on a minor between 1950 and 2002, according to a study being conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. That is roughly consistent with data on many similar professions.
An extensive 2007 investigation by the Associated Press showed that sexual abuse of children in U.S. schools was "widespread," and most of it was never reported or punished. And in Portland, Ore., last week, a jury reached a $1.4 million verdict against the Boy Scouts of America in a trial that showed that since the 1920s, Scouts officials kept "perversion files" on suspected abusers but kept them secret.

"We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Newsweek. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Part of the issue is that the Catholic Church is so tightly organized and keeps such meticulous records -- many of which have come to light voluntarily or through court orders -- that it can yield a fairly reliable portrait of its personnel and abuse over the decades. Other institutions, and most other religions, are more decentralized and harder to analyze or prosecute.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02026.html



“Sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests�

Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarden and 12th grade, says the report.


That conclusion drawn from a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education


http://wizbangblog.com/2011/07/08/sexua ... y-priests/

However, despite its saintly links, the bank that acts on behalf of the Catholic Church has developed a reputation for corruption, scandal and mismanagement over the last few decades.

Yep, like I said, just like everywhere there are lots of sinners and fallible men. Pope Francis is working hard to clean up any wrongdoing and get rid of the scumbags responsible.

RightReason wrote:

Ha! Another media biased headline that gets it wrong. The Church had no beef with pieces of latex. What made and still makes the use of condoms immoral is if and when they are used as contraception. The Pope gave an example of it possibly being possible for a male prostitute to use a condom if in doing so his intention was to not transmit disease to his partner. Since same sex acts are naturally non procreative, a person using a condom in a same sex act could not be guilty of contracepting. The Pope was clarifying it is not condoms, per se, that the Church is against, rather SIN is what the Church is against. If the male prostitutes use of a prophylactic when the sole intention is to “reduce the risk of infection� from AIDS, this at least would not be compounding the person’s already existing sin and immoral behavior. Do you get that? I doubt it. Most, like the headline you posted missed the point entirely and completely mis represented the Pope’s words.


So basically the Church feels justified to bend the rules just to prevent diseases?

Nope, you soooooo don’t get it. Like I said the Pope’s example was a male prostitute. Sodomy cannot be procreative. Therefore, the reason the Church opposes contraception has always been because of the immorality of contraception. There is nothing immoral about wanting to prevent disease. Therefore, if a male prostitute wants to use a condom to prevent the spread of disease he can do so because the condom obviously does not prevent conception.

Since when has it the right to prevent contraception at all?

It hasn’t, hence the Pope’s example of a male prostitute, obviously referring to homosexual acts.

And what the Pope says vindicates my argument. He is acknowledging that there are shades of grey which I have been espousing all this time.

Wrong. As explained above you simply don’t get it because you obviously have a black and white approach to looking at something. The Church has never been as legalistic as she is often accused by her haters. The Church is reasonable and laws aren’t imposed for the sake of the law. The Church is charge of teaching the truth in regards to the faith and matters of morality so that all individuals have a chance of peace and happiness in this world and a chance to be with God in the next.

A couple may use contraceptives to prevent a child being born with a debilitating disease which they know is a high possibility due to being carriers of the gene.

We are not God. Nor can we predict the future. A person should not separate the unitive nature of the sexual act.

Quote:
The Church cannot be the authority. Look to Jesus only!



RightReason wrote:

When we do we hear these words of Jesus Himself:

“He who hears you, hears me.� “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�


And how is this relevant to the debate?

It’s relevant to your statement. You claim the Church cannot be the authority, even though that is contradicted by Christ Himself. Therefore, it is extremely relevant if the Church declares contraception as immoral, then contraception is immoral – as the Church has the authority, given to her by Christ Himself, to say so.

Also I noticed you disregarded the fact that the Vatican had shares in an Italian birth control manufacturer. Why?

Because it is likely inaccurate with no substantial evidence and based more on anti-Catholic propaganda. Also, it is difficult to not have ties to birth control pills these days – as even our governments and insurance companies use our money to pay for such nonsense.


VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Thursday denied a German television report that its bank once held shares in a drug company producing birth control pills.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-23/ ... trol-pills


So, Claire Evans I think you fail to see the evidence and beauty of the teaching on the immorality of contraception. It is based on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Natural Law. God gave us this beautiful gift of sex, whereby we can be co creators. It is huge and awesome if one actually fathoms the significance. God in His wisdom knew what children and family mean. He knew it will be through our children that we learn unconditional love, sacrifice, and grow closer to our spouse, our children, and Him. To see children as another carbon footprint is to miss the significance and dignity of the human soul and it is to miss who God is. The Church tries to help her children realize this as it will be the road to our sanctification.

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

Contraceptive vs NFP:
You quoted/linked to the AFP website – the editorial section to assert your point:

Your link: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/od1.html

That very same website was running editorials debating the very merits of what we were discussing. So, I found the competing article which argued against your point.

Yes, there are articles arguing against NFP, and they would be misleading and often just like I mentioned in my previous post not comparing apples to apples. Those who fear NFP often have mis information, exactly like I showed you did by thinking NFP was the rhythm method.

The truth is NFP is an excellent way to avoid pregnancy if that is one’s goal. It is effective, it builds communication, improves marriages, is not intrusive, allows a woman to be have knowledge and take control of her own body, and costs nothing.

Excellent or not, it is not the most effective method, and it is certainly not the most flexible system.

Unbaptized Babies
No, no axe to grind. The church’s position on this subject means very little to me. But the point was that many Catholics (in my family and my religious circles back in the day) were pretty saddened and confused over the subject, and it clearly wasn’t just a small matter. After all, the church decided to look into it further (as the link I submitted shows). Why was the church’s position unclear on the matter?

You can’t be serious?

I am. Why are the concerns of the church’s members not an important matter to you?

Well, let’s see . . . the Church doesn’t just make stuff up.

Well, that opinion depends on whether one is an atheist or theist.

What she teaches is based on what has been revealed to her. Apparently, it has not been revealed what happens to unbaptized babies. In matters like this, the Church is permitted to offer her theological views and theories about what she thinks makes sense, which she did. You claim the Church’s position was unclear, what you mean is many people were unclear of the Church’s position.

No, your own words belie your point.

You said: Apparently, it has not been revealed what happens to unbaptized babies.

If it wasn’t revealed, then the church must intuit and surmise. Only afterwards can the church can offer her opinion. Until that clarification is offered, the church’s position IS unclear.

You downplay the importance of such an admission. I don’t. And neither do many Catholics.

Therefore, the Church felt the need to clarify. Some often wrongly view clarifications as new or changing positions/teachings. They are not. The teaching didn’t change.

If so, then the RCC doesn’t know if unbaptized babies go to hell or not. And that leads to whether god can be truly called good or not.

Hence the equivocation I showed: From “We don’t know� to “We don’t know but there is reason to hope.� The hope, after all, could be misplaced – as the church DOESN’T KNOW.

The Church is simply clarifying because it must have come to their attention that many are misunderstanding.

Misunderstood what? The church is position is ultimately and officially – We don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. The caveat of “we have reason to hope� is only an opinion – not DOCTRINE, as you now admit.

I grant you the positional change of “we don’t know� to “we don’t know but are hopeful� isn’t a large one, but it is still one, imo. You don’t have to agree, of course.

I don’t agree, nor do I think many others would either, unless, like I said, they are looking for something to criticize the Church about.

You ascribe motive where none exists. The RCC’s position on unbaptized babies is a problem for those who believe god is good.

The church admits as much. Why don’t you?

But let’s not quibble over what is “doctrine� or not. The Catholic church has changed its stance on some issues – and that was my point about tradition.

Oh, let’s quibble, because doctrine is doctrine NOT “doctrine�. If what you meant by doctrine is “doctrine� then you are the one who is unclear and being misleading.

At this point I admit I may very well have blurred the lines of doctrine and opinions. If I did, I apologize. I’m not going back to check, so, I’ll trust you to either to take me to task or to understand my position and move forward. Your choice.

No one ever said the Church can’t change her position on practices and theories. Things you may be referring to are not doctrines of the Church, rather typically disciplines.

The church changes its positions, teachings and messages was my point from the start.

Sex for Pleasure
Perhaps we were talking past each other here, but my point was that the church does not morally approve of sex for pleasure ONLY (even in a loving marriage). Do you agree?
I thought that point of mine was clear, if not, I apologize.

Well, I didn’t think it clear because you phrased it as the Church claiming sex is for procreation only. Which is NOT what the Church says. Also, even claiming as you now are attempting in your second go at it – “the church does not morally approve of sex for pleasure ONLY� is not exactly the full picture either.

One, no, my position here did not change. It has been clear from the get go. And Two, it is entirely the full picture (as I will show you below).

What the Church teaches is one cannot separate the unitive nature of the sexual act. Clearly, a married couple can have sex that is pleasurable that does not result in pregnancy and the Church is A-ok with this.

But they can’t have sex for pleasure with no risk of pregnancy – as birth control methods allow, or in other words, actively seeking to avoid its primary duty (see below).

You should be proud of this fact and not hide behind semantics. You took me to task earlier for not being clear, will you hold yourself to this same standard and admit that the Catholic Church condemns sex for pleasure ONLY?

You are finally getting a little closer in understanding with this comment of yours:

sex for a married couple cannot be done morally if reproduction is hindered or blocked.

So to clarify even a little further, a couple cannot purposely separate the unitive nature of the marital act.

Which is in all practicality the same as saying Sex for pleasure ONLY is wrong.

That rules out varying forms of sex and all forms of contraceptive use

Correct?

It rules out something that intentionally removes the procreative part of the unitive nature of that specific sexual act.

EXACTLY. That is the same as saying sex for pleasure ONLY is wrong.

Do you know what that means? It means the sexual act is unitive (pleasure AND procreative) in nature.

Exactly. AND, and not OR. Hopefully my point is now clear, and you will agree that the Catholic Church teaches that sex (even in a marriage) for pleasure ONLY is not moral.

I do not agree, as it is incomplete.

Now you are just being difficult. And it serves you no good. Any sex act that is not UNITIVE in nature is not moral. In other words, if it cannot result in a potential or possible pregnancy it is immoral.

There is no practical difference in what I said and what you say. You just don’t like the implications I assert. No matter how true it is.

I have lots of sex with my husband when I am pregnant.

Which can be argued is not UNITIVE in nature, btw.

“To embrace the married state, to make frequent use of the faculty proper to it and lawful only in that state, while on the other hand, always and deliberately to seek to evade its primary duty without serious reason, would be to sin against the very meaning of married life.� (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951.

The seriousness and holiness of the Christian moral law does not permit the unrestrained satisfying of the sexual instinct, nor such seeking merely for please and enjoyment. It does not allow rational man to let himself be so dominated either by the substance or the circumstances of the act. (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951)

Bold added by me for emphasis. The Catholic Church is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Since you are actively seeking to avoid pregnancy it is wrong.

Link: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/ ... Interc.pdf

All of those acts cannot result in pregnancy because I am already pregnant, making them for pleasure only.

Then you have a beef with Pius XII. Not me. You are, after all, deliberately seeking to evade its primary duty – are you not?

The reason the acts are not immoral is because we are doing nothing to separate the unitive nature of the act.

Pius XII disagrees.

It just happens to be that at that time, the nature of the act does not allow for procreation.

Just happened? By coincidence? Above you said it happens all the time. My point is that if you have sex while pregnant to avoid more pregnancy, the church believes this to be wrong.

If you are having sex while pregnant coincidentally then it is not an example we are talking about.

The nature of the act also does not allow for procreation during infertile times of the month, the nature of the act also does not allow for procreation once a woman has reached menopause. These are all part of the natural occurrence of our reproductive bodies

It is immoral if you are actively seeking to avoid its primary duty. According to Pius XII.

It isn’t immoral for a 55 year old woman to have sex. It is immoral to do something to intentionally separate/change/thwart/block/alter the inherent nature of the sexual act.

And if you are seeking to avoid its primary duty, it would be wrong according to the RCC..

I wonder why the word PRIMARY is used, btw? Could it be because it is the most important part of the UNITIVE concept?

As you can see, for this reason, I find it inaccurate to claim the Church teaches that sex for pleasure is immoral. Hope this helps.

It does not. Sex for pleasure, when read in the context of the catholic church’s teachings is secondary. You don’t have to believe me. You can believe Pius XII.

The Church does not take out the pleasure part of the unitive nature, so why do you?

Because that is the point you seem very reluctant to admit. Which was my point very early in our exchange. Sex for pleasure (only) is not considered moral by the Catholic Church – even when performed in a marriage.

Wrong. See above.

Correct, see above.

All the best,
(sorry for the late response)

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

The majority of your post said nothing, so I will cut to the chase and only respond what you haven’t already repeated and I already answered . . .

The RCC’s position on unbaptized babies is a problem for those who believe god is good.

I believe God is good and the Church’s position on unbaptized babies is not a problem for me. Perhaps it is a problem for those who do not understand their faith, know who God is, trust God, etc. But that isn’t really my problem.

But they can’t have sex for pleasure with no risk of pregnancy – as birth control methods allow, or in other words, actively seeking to avoid its primary duty (see below).

Wrong. Married couples can have sex for pleasure, even when there is no risk of pregnancy. I gave you two perfectly acceptable examples – pregnancy and menopause. I challenge to find anywhere where the Church says a couple cannot have sex while pregnant or over 55 years old.

Of course you make the mistake of equating such behavior with actively seeking to avoid pregnancy. Having sex when your 55 and not getting pregnant is not actively seeking to avoid pregnancy. Nor is having sex when your pregnant. Obviously, you are quite accepting of the fact that you are in fact already pregnant.

hold yourself to this same standard and admit that the Catholic Church condemns sex for pleasure ONLY?

I will not, because it does not. Once again, the Church acknowledges sex is pleasurable and that we as married couples get to enjoy that pleasure.

Now you are just being difficult. And it serves you no good. Any sex act that is not UNITIVE in nature is not moral. In other words, if it cannot result in a potential or possible pregnancy it is immoral.

Absolutely wrong. People don’t use contraception and don’t get pregnant all the time. And this is most certainly not immoral – as it is God’s design of the human body.

There is no practical difference in what I said and what you say. You just don’t like the implications I assert.

Wrong. And I think it very clear for anyone reading this to see that there is a difference between what you are saying and what I am saying.

I have lots of sex with my husband when I am pregnant.

Which can be argued is not UNITIVE in nature, btw.

Wrong. My husband and I do nothing to stop/block/alter the nature of the sexual act. That however, take a biology class!, does not mean every sexual act ends in conception. That is the nature of the act. We are allowing the nature of the act to occur/go about undisturbed.

The Catholic Church is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Since you are actively seeking to avoid pregnancy it is wrong.

But having unprotected sex when you’re 55 is not actively seeking to avoid pregnancy. The only thing you are actively doing is actively engaging in the marital act and allowing for the natural consequences of that act.

My point is that if you have sex while pregnant to avoid more pregnancy, the church believes this to be wrong.

Ok, I want you to take a deep breath and think about your sentence. It is extremely odd to accuse someone of avoiding pregnancy when they are already pregnant. However, to play along in your very unlikely hypothetical . . .

If a couple did not want to get pregnant, used immoral means to actively prevent pregnancy, then “accidentally� found out they were pregnant anyway and then decided to only have sex for the next 9 months since they couldn’t get pregnant again and as soon as the wife had the baby went back to actively once again avoiding pregnancy, then yes you are correct that would be immoral and frowned upon by the Church. It would be wrong if this was their intention/motivation and I might add makes for a very sad and selfish marriage.

It is immoral if you are actively seeking to avoid its primary duty. According to Pius XII.

I’m afraid it is you who misunderstand Pius, because the example you give is not actively seeking to avoid pregnancy – unless like mentioned above the weird/rare example I gave about the selfish couple only ever having sex while purposely and actively taking out the procreative nature of the sexual act.

It isn’t immoral for a 55 year old woman to have sex. It is immoral to do something to intentionally separate/change/thwart/block/alter the inherent nature of the sexual act.

And if you are seeking to avoid its primary duty, it would be wrong according to the RCC..

So, did the married couple not have sexual relations until they were over 55 so that now they are unlikely to conceive? If they did, that does seem weird and problematic and God would have to judge their intentions. But again, the Church says no such prohibition to menopausal couples not engaging in marital relations.