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?

[KenRU]

[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 . . .

That’s fine with me but was the dig necessary? Perhaps you can find a theistic justification, you know, a positional change that allows for unwarranted sarcasm?

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.

Then justify that a good god would send an unbaptized baby to hell. Or provide DOCTRINE that says he won’t send them to hell. And if you can’t, perhaps you shouldn’t minimize those Catholics that this subject bothers? Saying you don’t have a problem with this is not an answer to the dilemma. Nor does it mean the dilemma doesn’t exist.

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.

According to Pius XII: if a couple actively seeks to have sex for pleasure and avoid pregnancy then they are behaving immorally as they are seeking to get around the unitive nature of the act and its primary duty.

These are not my words. They are the church’s.

If your examples do not fit that criteria, then it would not be a part of my argument, would it?

So, any method that seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY (NFP?) is not condoned.

Of course you make the mistake of equating such behavior with actively seeking to avoid pregnancy.

No. Now you are being dishonest. That is my whole point. SEX FOR PLEASURE ONLY is frowned upon and deemed immoral. I have quoted you multiple sources of RCC positions that state this unequivocally.

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.

Neither scenario qualifies for my argument so stop making a strawman just so you can shoot it down.

Actively seeking to avoid the unitive nature of the sex act is immoral – according to Pius XII and the church.

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.

Cognitive dissonance is at play I guess.

It seems your apologetics will not allow you to even admit that which the church proudly states. Your unwillingness to admit this now is quite evident for all to see.

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.

It seems you are purposefully ignoring points now.

Ppl not using contraception would not be breaking the unitive nature and would not be an example I am talking about – and you know this, yet you continually ignore my point.

But, as Pius XII states, any couple who actively seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY of the sex act is not acting morally.

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.

Now there is a difference because you are trying to put up strawmen for you to knock down. But it is clear that you are deliberately ignoring a very relevant point. Any couple seeking to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY of the sex act is behaving immorally – according to church teachings.

If you have sex when you are pregnant because you do not wish to have another child but want are doing so for the pleasure of it, that is immoral. If you have sex but (by any natural or unnatural means) circumvent the possibility of pregnancy BY INTENT, that is wrong behavior. So says the RCC.

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.

Good grief. You keep thinking conception is required to my argument when it is not.

This is quite simple. Sex for pleasure only is not condoned. Simple. Pius XII makes that very clear. Please address this point. If you have sex and assume the risk of pregnancy, you are not having sex for pleasure only are you? You are having sex for pleasure and risking pregnancy. Sex for pleasure only means no risk of pregnancy. If that wasn’t clear (and I can’t see how it wasn’t) it should be now.

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.

That’s right, and that is why it is not my example. It is yours. So stop bringing it up, or show its relevance.

The only thing you are actively doing is actively engaging in the marital act and allowing for the natural consequences of that act.

Which is NOT what I am talking about.

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 . . .

<deep breath taken> Thanks.

Your turn, a deep breath may be necessary for you to continue.

Pius XII message is quite clear. Do not seek to avoid the unitive rule. By you saying what you say above, you show you are clearly not thinking this through.

People want to have sex, people many times do not want to get pregnant. People who engage in sex for pleasure and seek (and take action) to avoid pregnancy are not following the church’s stance on moral behavior. Whatever method is taken to avoid the risk of pregnancy breaks the unitive part of the rule, and is frowned upon. I’d like to see you address this.

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 doesn’t have to be multiple attempts or even only at those times. Doing it only one time for pleasure knowing you can’t get pregnant qualifies. Think it through, one act of this behavior is still wrong – yes or no? Intent matters.

In either case, the point is that sex for pleasure with no risk of pregnancy breaks the primary duty of the unitive act.

You have yet to acknowledge this. And this is my point regarding the sad opinion the RCC has on this topic.

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.

Sorry, saying I am wrong and walking off doesn’t cut it. Please read his quote. It is quite clear. I provided the quotes for you and the readers to see.

I challenge you to show that my position disagrees with his, and what example do you think doesn’t qualify?

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.

Keep bringing up arguments that I am not making, and it shows either that you are not understanding or that you are being purposefully difficult.

Pius XII’s message is quite clear, I’ll repost it because you don’t want to address it in the context of my argument:

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 pleasure 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. Anyone actively seeking to avoid pregnancy is behaving immorally.

Link: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/ ... ily-planni...

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

That’s fine with me but was the dig necessary? Perhaps you can find a theistic justification, you know, a positional change that allows for unwarranted sarcasm?

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

Mockery, satire and sarcasm aren’t simply mean-spirited responses, they’re rhetorical weapons in the hands of those on the bottom. They defy the status quo, challenge power structures and strip away affectation.


When someone tells me that irreverence, satire and sarcasm strikes a tone that isn’t Christ-like, I wonder what Bible they’re reading. Jesus fought against an entrenched power structure and often did so with cutting satire. If you don’t think there are any jokes in the Bible, you’re probably reading it with too much sanctimony.
Here are a few examples of Jesus’ sarcasm

HAVE YOU NOT READ? (MATTHEW 12)

When Jesus asks them if they’ve read a Scripture before He explains it to them, it’s a taunt.


WHICH GOOD WORK DO YOU PUNISH ME FOR? (JOHN 10)

https://relevantmagazine.com/article/4- ... e-a-point/

Quote:
Quote:
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.

Then justify that a good god would send an unbaptized baby to hell.

I don’t believe God needs my justification. He can do whatever He likes and knowing what I know about Him, I believe anything He does is loving, just, and His prerogative. I trust He knows more than me. So, while we don’t know every answer to every theological question down here on earth, we know the one that knows. And that’s all we need to know. Every Catholic should recognize that.

According to Pius XII: if a couple actively seeks to have sex for pleasure and avoid pregnancy then they are behaving immorally as they are seeking to get around the unitive nature of the act and its primary duty.

Asked and answered. Having sex while you’re pregnant is not actively seeking to block/alter/change the nature of the sexual act. Same for menopause.

These are not my words. They are the church’s.

Yes, you are simply butchering them and being unfair in your suggested interpretation.

If your examples do not fit that criteria, then it would not be a part of my argument, would it?

Then you have no argument. You originally claimed having sex while pregnant would be immoral according to your suggested meaning of Pius. Of course we both know it isn’t Church teaching, is it, to suggest the Church forbids sex while pregnant or during menopause. Soooooooo . . . once again your understanding of Pius’ words are clearly incorrect.

So, any method that seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY (NFP?) is not condoned.

Nope. Any method that involves doing something to actively block/thwart the natural consequences of the marital act would be what is not condoned.

Quote:
Of course you make the mistake of equating such behavior with actively seeking to avoid pregnancy.

No. Now you are being dishonest. That is my whole point. SEX FOR PLEASURE ONLY is frowned upon and deemed immoral. I have quoted you multiple sources of RCC positions that state this unequivocally.

You have done no such thing. Other than take words out of context and attempt to tell us the Church means what you say the Church means. LOL!

It seems your apologetics will not allow you to even admit that which the church proudly states.

Ha, ha, ha . . . right back at ya. You seem hell bent on playing word games – not unlike the Pharisees attempted to do with Jesus. They often attempted to suggest Jesus was in violation of the law. Of course, every time Jesus turned the tables on them and showed them they obviously failed to understand the true meaning of the law.

But, as Pius XII states, any couple who actively seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY of the sex act is not acting morally.

Let us not limit Church teaching to one sentence, rather look to all of what Pius and the Church say. And when we do, we would notice that the Church does not condemn those who honor the nature of the marital act. Having sex while pregnant, having sex on a non fertile day of a woman’s cycle, having sex when a woman has reached menopause, etc are not in violation of Church teaching because the couple is honoring the nature of the marital act. Perhaps you should sleep on it.

This is quite simple. Sex for pleasure only is not condoned.

I will repeat again – this is incomplete and dishonest.

the point is that sex for pleasure with no risk of pregnancy breaks the primary duty of the unitive act.

Nope. The nature of the marital act is the nature of the marital act – whether it results in pregnancy or not. You aren’t guilty of breaking the nature of the marital act if you aren’t doing anything to change/alter that nature. Please think about that!!

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 pleasure 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)

Beautiful, isn’t it? And wise. He was quite prophetic as well and made several predictions about what would occur if married couples started using contraception and they have all come true. We can talk more about that if you like.

Bold added by me for emphasis. The Catholic Church is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Anyone actively seeking to avoid pregnancy is behaving immorally.

They can be and I have already admitted such numerous times. Of course, a couple practicing NFP would not be guilty of the sin of contracepting. The couple could be guilty of selfishness and not trusting God, or of using one’s spouse. And if they practiced NFP because they never wanted children and simply wanted to live a luxurious life style and travel, etc. their intentions could very well be immoral. However, once again, they would not be guilty of the sin of contraception because they wouldn’t be doing something to destroy the nature of the sexual act. Also, if you notice Pius acknowledges that the Church recognizes there are situations/circumstances when a couple could have serious reason. So, once again you see the Church does not make a blanket condemnation of things like NFP (having sex during a woman’s infertile days.) Seems the Church is a little more understanding and reasonable in her teaching then in your interpretation of her teaching.

I encourage you to learn more about this and other teachings of the Church. They are pretty awesome and always to help man obtain true human fulfillment. Kinda cool, huh?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Justin108]

Nice article for anyone interested . . .

The Historic Christian Teaching Against Contraception: A Defense

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/08/17559/

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

That’s fine with me but was the dig necessary? Perhaps you can find a theistic justification, you know, a positional change that allows for unwarranted sarcasm?

Mockery, satire and sarcasm aren’t simply mean-spirited responses, they’re rhetorical weapons in the hands of those on the bottom. They defy the status quo, challenge power structures and strip away affectation.

Given that there are far more theists then atheists, that puts me at the bottom and not you. But your weak justification for sarcasm has not gone unnoticed …

When someone tells me that irreverence, satire and sarcasm strikes a tone that isn’t Christ-like, I wonder what Bible they’re reading. Jesus fought against an entrenched power structure and often did so with cutting satire. If you don’t think there are any jokes in the Bible, you’re probably reading it with too much sanctimony.

Justify all you like, it simply won’t fly. I have been quite civil, but I will reply in kind when I feel it is warranted.

In my experience, sarcasm and cheap digs are often the tool for those who have weak arguments, and they know it.

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.

It is also for a problem for someone who claims to know what Good is, yet know the word “enough� to label their god Good.

God is good when he/she/it behaves good, but when he doesn’t … well then … Trust god regardless. (see your response directly below this one for more evidence of this thinking)

How convenient.

Then justify that a good god would send an unbaptized baby to hell.

I don’t believe God needs my justification. He can do whatever He likes and knowing what I know about Him, I believe anything He does is loving, just, and His prerogative. I trust He knows more than me. So, while we don’t know every answer to every theological question down here on earth, we know the one that knows. And that’s all we need to know. Every Catholic should recognize that.

Yep, god is good when he behaves good, but when he doesn’t, it is just god behaving mysteriously.

So, no. That is not a very good argument to explain away what happens to unbaptized babies, and it is entirely reasonable to criticize a being labeled as good.

According to Pius XII: if a couple actively seeks to have sex for pleasure and avoid pregnancy then they are behaving immorally as they are seeking to get around the unitive nature of the act and its primary duty.

Asked and answered. Having sex while you’re pregnant is not actively seeking to block/alter/change the nature of the sexual act. Same for menopause.

Motives matter. So, no, it has not been answered. If you think it is rare or uncommon for couples to have more sex when they know there is no chance of pregnancy, then that would be a very naïve position to hold. So, BY DEFINITION, any couple that does this is looking to circumvent the rules (Unitive AND Procreative) and the RCC will call that behavior immoral.

These are not my words. They are the church’s.

Yes, you are simply butchering them and being unfair in your suggested interpretation.

Not in the least. But if true, it should be easy to show that I did.

If your examples do not fit that criteria, then it would not be a part of my argument, would it?

Then you have no argument.

Only if you have ignored my point, could you think that, or if you are in denial.

You originally claimed having sex while pregnant would be immoral according to your suggested meaning of Pius.

Are you purposefully ignoring the part of my argument about INTENT?

Of course we both know it isn’t Church teaching, is it, to suggest the Church forbids sex while pregnant or during menopause.

Nope, wrong. Never said that. Stop straw-manning me, please.

Soooooooo . . . once again your understanding of Pius’ words are clearly incorrect.

Soooooooo . . . once again your understanding of my point is clearly incorrect. Care to try again?

So, any method that seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY (NFP?) is not condoned.

Nope. Any method that involves doing something to actively block/thwart the natural consequences of the marital act would be what is not condoned.

The act of sex is both Unitive and Procreative, correct? So, if anyone engages in sex while intentionally avoiding one of those criteria would be behaving immorally.

So, any couple that decides to have sex for pleasure without the CHANCE of procreation would have broken one of the rules. Period. Full stop.

Of course you make the mistake of equating such behavior with actively seeking to avoid pregnancy.

No. Now you are being dishonest. That is my whole point. SEX FOR PLEASURE ONLY is frowned upon and deemed immoral. I have quoted you multiple sources of RCC positions that state this unequivocally.

You have done no such thing. Other than take words out of context and attempt to tell us the Church means what you say the Church means. LOL!

Denial without support helps you not.

You have already admitted that sex must be Procreative and Unitive. Remove one criteria and the rule is broken. Neither god not I are fooled by the efforts to circumvent the rules.

It seems your apologetics will not allow you to even admit that which the church proudly states.

Ha, ha, ha . . . right back at ya.

Um, I have been apologizing for nothing, so, um, ok?

You seem hell bent on playing word games – not unlike the Pharisees attempted to do with Jesus.

No word games. Just calling it as I see it. Sorry, but your position needs word games in order to weasel out of the Unitive AND Procreative portion of the RCC’s rule. Not me.

Condoms (when sex for pleasure with no chance of pregnancy is wanted) are bad because it blocks the Procreative part of the rule. But intentionally having sex (for pleasure), when a woman can’t get pregnant (the examples you gave which also intentionally avoid the Procreative part) .. that is ok.

And you say I am playing word games. Examine the log in thine own, perhaps?

They often attempted to suggest Jesus was in violation of the law. Of course, every time Jesus turned the tables on them and showed them they obviously failed to understand the true meaning of the law.

Did you just equate yourself with Jesus?

But, as Pius XII states, any couple who actively seeks to avoid the PRIMARY DUTY of the sex act is not acting morally.

Let us not limit Church teaching to one sentence, rather look to all of what Pius and the Church say. And when we do, we would notice that the Church does not condemn those who honor the nature of the marital act. Having sex while pregnant, having sex on a non fertile day of a woman’s cycle, having sex when a woman has reached menopause, etc are not in violation of Church teaching because the couple is honoring the nature of the marital act.

Except when it is in violation, of course. Motive matters. If one wants to have sex without the Procreative part possible, then they are breaking the rule. BY DEFINITION, because the AND PROCREATIVE part of the rule is avoided – INTENTIONALLY, I might add.

Arguing otherwise is just weaseling.

Perhaps you should sleep on it.

I did, thanks. I found it quite helpful. Perhaps you should give it a try too?

This is quite simple. Sex for pleasure only is not condoned.

I will repeat again – this is incomplete and dishonest.

The rule has two conditions that need to be met. If one condition is not met, the rule is broken. Please do argue otherwise.

the point is that sex for pleasure with no risk of pregnancy breaks the primary duty of the unitive act.

Nope.

Yep.

The nature of the marital act is the nature of the marital act – whether it results in pregnancy or not.

Agreed. If this surprises you, I submit it is because you are not gathering my point.

You aren’t guilty of breaking the nature of the marital act if you aren’t doing anything to change/alter that nature.

Intentionally having intercourse because you have no risk of pregnancy breaks the “and procreative� part of the rule. Seems simple enough to me.

Please think about that!!

I have, thank you. Now your turn.

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 pleasure 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)

Beautiful, isn’t it? And wise. He was quite prophetic as well and made several predictions about what would occur if married couples started using contraception and they have all come true.

You do realize that the quote you provided argues against sex for pleasure, right?�

We can talk more about that if you like.

In another thread, perhaps.

Bold added by me for emphasis. The Catholic Church is saying the exact same thing I have been saying. Anyone actively seeking to avoid pregnancy is behaving immorally.

They can be and I have already admitted such numerous times. Of course, a couple practicing NFP would not be guilty of the sin of contracepting.

If they are actively seeking to avoid the Procreative part of the rule, then they are.

The couple could be guilty of selfishness

Please do elaborate here. Selfish how?

and not trusting God, or of using one’s spouse.

I assumed we are talking about consensual sex.

And if they practiced NFP because they never wanted children and simply wanted to live a luxurious life style and travel, etc. their intentions could very well be immoral.

Glad you FINALLY agree that sex for pleasure is immoral in the eyes of the RCC. Took you long enough!

However, once again, they would not be guilty of the sin of contraception because they wouldn’t be doing something to destroy the nature of the sexual act.

They would be guilty of intentionally preventing the Procreative part of the sex act.

Also, if you notice Pius acknowledges that the Church recognizes there are situations/circumstances when a couple could have serious reason.

Please elaborate.

So, once again you see the Church does not make a blanket condemnation of things like NFP (having sex during a woman’s infertile days.).

Please do show evidence for this claim.

Seems the Church is a little more understanding and reasonable in her teaching then in your interpretation of her teaching.

I didn’t invent the conditions of the “Unitive and Procreative� rule. The RCC did.

I encourage you to learn more about this and other teachings of the Church.

I will and plan to continue to do so. I consider myself fortunate to have engage in debate with you. I have learned much.

If I may, I’d like to encourage you to view the RCC through a more clinical eye. Having been on both sides of this argument (a defender of the RCC and now a critic), I can understand the difficulty of such an undertaking.

They are pretty awesome and always to help man obtain true human fulfillment. Kinda cool, huh?

We will disagree on the benefits of the RCC and organized religion as a whole, lol.

-All the best

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

In my experience, sarcasm and cheap digs are often the tool for those who have weak arguments, and they know it.

Again, the irony in criticizing satire and sarcasm as un “Christ like� simply makes me think a person isn’t all that familiar with Jesus and Scripture. Satire, sarcasm, humor have a place and help get points across. Typically, people are all for it when it is targeted to the other side and not their side. I also have observed those that get hung up on tone and “sarcasm� They tend to do so because it’s easier to knock down the messenger rather than the message.

Having a little trouble finding problems with the beauty and truth of the church’s teaching on contraception?

It is also for a problem for someone who claims to know what Good is, yet know the word “enough� to label their god Good.

All men can know right/good from wrong/bad and most men can understand there might be things we don’t have all the information about. To hold God to human standards itself indicates one may not understand God and have an ignorant notion of self importance.

God is good when he/she/it behaves good, but when he doesn’t … well then … Trust god regardless.

I’m picturing a child witnessing a man beating up another man and thinking the man doing the beating as behaving bad, but the child not being privy to the circumstances/situation leading up to the man doing the beating and how the child is oblivious to the fact that said bad man just saved his life. But yeah, let’s continue in thinking we have it all figured out.

I stand by my response: “We know the one that knows� It’s a rational and legitimate claim. It would be like a child not fully understanding why his parents want him or don’t want him to do something, but be trusting because he knows his parents love him and what is going on could simply be something he just doesn’t understand right now. Sounds reasonable and rational to me.

If you think it is rare or uncommon for couples to have more sex when they know there is no chance of pregnancy, then that would be a very naïve position to hold.

I don’t understand this comment. I have been married for 25 years and I can assure you not once have we had more sex when we know there is not chance of pregnancy. Quite frankly, we have always had sex whenever we’ve wanted. In fact, for a woman the body naturally desires more sex when she is ovulating. This is a scientific fact and one I have personally experienced many times. Scientific research also shows women on birth control pills desires less sex

So, BY DEFINITION, any couple that does this is looking to circumvent the rules (Unitive AND Procreative) and the RCC will call that behavior immoral.

If a couple was not open to life and closed off to having children and purposely only had sex when they knew there was absolutely no risk of pregnancy yes the Church would say that couple is not only being selfish, running the risk of using their spouse, and missing out on the greatest blessings God might be wanting to give them, but the couple still would not be guilty of circumventing the rules. The “rules� are simple: if you choose to engage in the marital act, you cannot do something to change/alter/thwart/block the consequences of said act. The couple would not be guilty of the sin of contraception if the couple is NOT using contraception anymore than a couple that has sex when the woman is already pregnant would be guilty of the sin of contraception. You do see the illogic in your argument, right? They aren’t altering/changing/blocking the natural consequences of the marital act. But a couple could be guilty of selfishness or not trusting God, etc.

The act of sex is both Unitive and Procreative, correct?

Sex, by observation has a unitive nature. Of course not every sexual act results in pregnancy, correct?

So, if anyone engages in sex while intentionally avoiding one of those criteria would be behaving immorally.

So, would we both agree it would be wrong or disordered to eat food and then vomit it up so as not to have to deal with the consequences (calories) of said food? That would be wrong, right? But do you think it would be wrong or disordered to not have desserts so as to skip the consequences of the calories? One approach says, I want the pleasure of eating the donut, but I don’t want to accept what happens when I eat the donut, so I will alter/block the natural consequences of doing so. The other approach says, I will skip/not partake in the pleasure of eating the donut. One behavior requires discipline and will power and sacrifice. The other behavior is an attempt to “cheat� the design/natural order.

So, any couple that decides to have sex for pleasure without the CHANCE of procreation would have broken one of the rules. Period. Full stop.

Nope. Unless you think it is immoral to skip dessert sometimes.

SEX FOR PLEASURE ONLY is frowned upon and deemed immoral. I have quoted you multiple sources of RCC positions that state this unequivocally.


You have done no such thing. Other than take words out of context and attempt to tell us the Church means what you say the Church means. LOL!

Repeat, no where will you find the Church says sex for pleasure is frowned upon. You DON’T GET IT!! Sexual pleasure is designed by God AND no where does the Church say every Catholic should have as many children as they possibly can. Please show me where something like that is said!!!!! You simply don’t know Church teaching. The Church’s teaching on sex is beautiful. Maybe you ought to find out what they actually say and teach.

Quote:
Quote:
It seems your apologetics will not allow you to even admit that which the church proudly states.


Ha, ha, ha . . . right back at ya.

Um, I have been apologizing for nothing, so, um, ok?

Nor have I. Nor will I because what the Church teaches is both truth and beautiful. You accuse me of not admitting what the Church teaches and yet I’ve done nothing but admit what the Church teaches. It is you who doesn’t have a clue about what the Church actually says. Your stereotypes and mis information is right out of a Dan Brown novel. I encourage you to actually look into it.

I too have enjoyed our conversation. I’m glad you’re leaning some stuff. Still sounds like perhaps you don’t quite understand the Church’s teaching on this matter. I think if you continue to be open and make an attempt to find out what they really teach, you will get there. The Church wants what is best for her children. She isn’t out to take away our pleasure or put unnecessary demands us. Church teaching is not limiting, rather freeing. Truth will set us free. This is proven time and time again.

[DPMartin]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

is gun use a sin?

[RightReason]

[Replying to DPMartin]

is gun use a sin?

I'm kind of slow sometimes. Can you walk me thru your analogy?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

No.

Neeext!

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 77 by ThePainefulTruth]


Some Scriptural Evidence . . .

Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 – from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile�) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

Gen. 28:3 – Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 – Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 – the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 – also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,� which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 – God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 – wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity – and other religions – until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

Lev. 21:17,20 – crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 – whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

Deut. 25:11-12 – there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 – God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.�

Psalm 127:3-5 – children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 – God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

Mal. 2:14 – marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Mal. 2:15 – What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.� Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

Matt. 19:5-6 – Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 – contraception prevents God’s ability to “join� together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

Acts 5:1-11 – Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 – sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 – the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

1 Cor. 7:5 – this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP�). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 – God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 – Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 – mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

1 Tim. 2:15 – childbearing is considered a “work� through which women may be saved by God’s grace.

Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 – these verses mention the word “sorcery.� The Greek word is “pharmakeia� which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception/

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.

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

[Tcg]

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

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of contraception. The concept of "sin" is as antiquated as the idea that there is something wrong with the use of contraception.

There is no rational reason to turn to the Bible to determine what is right or wrong.