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?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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

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

I know that but I am referring to laws throughout the OT which is supposed to be adhered by. According to the Bible, Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law. He didn't say just Mosaic law.


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

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

The early Christians were united. There weren't other churches. Yet they still argued and had differences of opinions.

Trust me, the devil worms himself into churches. So what a church may think is from Jesus may actually just be from the devil himself.

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

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

You do not take into account Satan. He can deceive those in the Church. I see it in my own church. We still have free will which means we aren't always sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

RightReason wrote:

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


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

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

But you seem to think that everything in Bible is truthful and is from God. It is immoral to commit adultery and that is why they were stoned in the OT. If God gave the law to have them put to death, what has changed? His values never change.

Leviticus 20:10

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

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

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

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

The Vatican doesn't. How many paedophiles dwell there and the Pope refused to punish them?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... e-priests/

Apparently the Church care about everyone, including Martians:

In a homily delivered Monday, Pope Francis said he'd totally baptize Martians if they showed up at the Vatican demanding to be baptized.
He was trying to illustrate the point that everyone has the right to receive the Holy Spirit -- even aliens from faraway planets.
" If tomorrow, for example, an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us ... and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptized!', what would happen?" the pontiff said, according to AFP.

http://time.com/97695/pope-francis-woul ... -martians/

Jesus is my authority, not weird Christian leaders' interpretations.

Even the early Church bent their own beliefs:

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

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

Can you give me the scriptures that said Jesus came to do away with the Mosaic Law but not he moral law. Because circumcision was a sign between the Israelites and Jews. That was not a Mosaic Law. It was a law from Yahweh, himself.

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

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

I don't know where you are from but things aren't consistent in all countries. Many people who have too many children in South Africa live in shacks. They tend to burn down. The family loses all their possessions. Theft is a problem. Often children have to walk long distances to school wearing the shoes out.

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

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

That's a selfish mentality. Does a child deserve to be born in these circumstances?




Yes, even Jesus though that way.

Matthew 24:19


How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

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

I wasn't thinking of Down Symdrome. I was thinking of a baby who would be in constant pain. And that most certainly doesn't extend to Grandma. I wasn't talking about euthanasia although that would most certainly be the most compassion thing to do when someone is terminal and is in a lot of pain.

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

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

Stop appealing to authority. They aren't fallible. They had their bias moments for they were just human. Let God decide what is best for a person's certain circumstances. It is not a black and white world. I am advocating the choice to limit one's children, not a forced law where it deprives people from having children even when they want them.

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

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

I understand this but not everyone's circumstances are the same. Some won't ever get over the trauma having a constant reminder and some children cannot handle the fact that their father is a rapist. That is why it is important to pray about every circumstance and let God tell them what the right thing to do is, not consulting fallible people.

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

And if the child lives years in constant suffering? Would you prefer that to preventing that child from being born at all never having suffered?

Jesus didn't have children. Big difference.

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

No, she just trusted God to know that He was fulfilling His will through her. It wasn't an issue about whether she wanted the child or not. It was about obedience.

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

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

The same church with paedophiles with the Vatican living in wanton luxury while others starve?

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

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

We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

RightReason wrote:

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


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

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

I think you believe God is devoid of reason.

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

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

I suggest you chose God as your authority and not the Church. As we know, the Vatican is extremely corrupt.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

RightReason wrote:

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



I know that but I am referring to laws throughout the OT which is supposed to be adhered by. According to the Bible, Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law. He didn't say just Mosaic law.

Yes, so what don’t you understand? God’s people use to be commanded to offer animal sacrifices to demonstrate their faith and love of God. The command to offer animal sacrifices is no more – but the point of the law remains – that we are to show love and pay homage to God. The law is fulfilled. Honoring God’s gift to us of the marital act is to understand the meaning and purpose of His gift – using contraception shows one misunderstands sex, love, marriage, and family.

You are attempting to use the typical argument, that many non believers and atheists like to appeal to this as well, that since we no longer stone people to death we can go on to pick and choose which of God’s commands we are still expected to keep and which we can ignore. That itself shows a complete lack of knowledge of the purpose of the law. Just because we no longer stone people to death does not mean God is now cool with adultery. Clearly such a rationalization fails and renders your argument meaningless.

How ‘bout this – if you are confused on what moral laws human beings are subject to – observe man and his relationship with this world. Acknowledge the world and the way it works. Pay attention to God’s design of the human body, biology, form, function, shape, consequences of behavior, etc. An even bigger short cut and if one is Christian would be to listen to Christ’s Church. Christ left His Church in charge precisely for arguments over matters like this.

Trust me, the devil worms himself into churches. So what a church may think is from Jesus may actually just be from the devil himself.

This is true and who would the devil be more likely to attack? Would he bother with non threatening “churches�. Satan knows Christ’s Church on earth and is quite clever in attacking truth. Why do you think his greatest attacks are on the Church and the family?

You do not take into account Satan. He can deceive those in the Church. I see it in my own church. We still have free will which means we aren't always sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, I do not underestimate the power of Satan. All the more reason to follow Christ’s established Church – not less. It would make Satan quite happy to make us think since the Church is comprised of fallible human beings, we need not listen to her.

But you seem to think that everything in Bible is truthful and is from God. It is immoral to commit adultery and that is why they were stoned in the OT. If God gave the law to have them put to death, what has changed? His values never change.

Leviticus 20:10

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Yes, I think everything in the Bible is truthful and from God, but like I’ve already explained earlier, one must first understand the law. It was never about the law for the sake of the law. Punishment was rendered to a Barbaric people in terms they could understand. Do I not cheat on my spouse because I don’t want to suffer the punishment? Or is it God’s hope that I don’t cheat on my spouse because I come to understand the law – it’s beauty and freedom in living out God’s command? God isn’t condemning contraception to make our lives difficult and miserable – the very opposite is true. You simply fail to get understand the law.

RightReason wrote:

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

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

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



The Vatican doesn't. How many paedophiles dwell there and the Pope refused to punish them?

<sigh> Well, I have to admit you lasted several posts before you brought up pedophilia – LOL!

Tell me, how many pedophiles dwell in families where other family members covered it up? How many pedophiles dwell in our school systems where schools did not bring attention to their schools in making known public such information? How many pedophiles exist in Christian and other religious groups whose identities were kept secret?

Statistically speaking, there are more public school teachers guilty of pedophilia than Catholic priests, so I’m guessing you are anti-education.

Apparently the Church care about everyone, including Martians:

In a homily delivered Monday, Pope Francis said he'd totally baptize Martians if they showed up at the Vatican demanding to be baptized.
He was trying to illustrate the point that everyone has the right to receive the Holy Spirit -- even aliens from faraway planets.
" If tomorrow, for example, an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us ... and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptized!', what would happen?" the pontiff said, according to AFP.

http://time.com/97695/pope-francis-woul ... -martians/

Jesus is my authority, not weird Christian leaders' interpretations.

I really don’t know what to make of your comments. How are the Pope’s words here problematic? Someone is really reaching to bash the Church to bring up something like this as some kind of criticism. I agree with Pope Francis! Why wouldn’t you welcome martians into the Good News and salvation of Christ? It is very odd to me that you find his comments odd or as you say weird. What is weird about what he said? First, he was responding to a hypothetical question posed to him (not like he is declaring little green men on Mars). Second, there very well could be other planets with life forms – if that was God’s plan. Please tell me you don’t limit God’s ability. Third, what do you have against aliens and foreigners?

I don't know where you are from but things aren't consistent in all countries. Many people who have too many children in South Africa live in shacks. They tend to burn down. The family loses all their possessions. Theft is a problem. Often children have to walk long distances to school wearing the shoes out.

Then let us, from more affluent countries, help them, by helping them build stronger safer homes they can call their own to raise their families. Let us help in building them more schools. If there aren’t enough homes or schools for children the solution is not to eliminate the children. Such a devastating mentality and not one that I could see the creator of life would be on board with.

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



That's a selfish mentality. Does a child deserve to be born in these circumstances?

Who gets to decide quality of life?

Yes, even Jesus though that way.

Matthew 24:19


How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

You realize these passages like yours above and mine below . . .

Luke 23:29
Look, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed.'

are confirming that God believes THAT is a horrible mentality, right? God is saying believe it or not, but there will actually be a time when people see barrenness and childlessness as a blessing(good). China’s one child policy is probably one of those prophetic moments God is referring to. God wasn’t predicting this is a good thing. It is a horrible thing. How do you not see it?

I wasn't thinking of Down Symdrome. I was thinking of a baby who would be in constant pain.

Yes, yes, . . . always the rationalization – it’s really so the child doesn’t have to suffer. Unfortunately, the world thinks a Down Syndrome child does not have the kind of life they have deemed as right/good. This is precisely why Down Syndrome children are now aborted and never even given the chance to live. Because, well, as people like you say, it is really for their own good. I am thinking about them and what kind of life they would lead – emphasizing how unless one is strong and healthy and “perfect� he/she is of less value.

Stop appealing to authority. They aren't fallible.

The Church does have authority – given to her by Christ Himself AND although comprised of fallible human beings, she is infallible on her teachings in matters of faith and morals.

Let God decide what is best for a person's certain circumstances

Yes, let’s. Why tweak God’s design and plan.

And if the child lives years in constant suffering? Would you prefer that to preventing that child from being born at all never having suffered?

First, what do you consider constant suffering? Is even a person in a vegetative state considered in constant suffering? You don’t know what that individual is going through. Also, today physical pain can often be minimized via pain medication. Whose pain and suffering are we really talking about? There is much we can learn from suffering and constant pain is rarely a reality. Pain is typically temporary. Even a year can’t compare to eternity. And there are many circumstances when human beings have endured intense physical pain only to rise even stronger. Perhaps many have an unfounded fear of suffering. We live in a world that often does not understand there can be joy amid suffering. Mary & Joseph had a hard life – extreme poverty, watching their son be mocked and tortured and yet among this difficult life and intense sorrow, they no doubt experienced an indescribable joy. This is the Christian joy that many a non believer just doesn’t get.

The same church with paedophiles with the Vatican living in wanton luxury while others starve?

No, like I said the same Church that is the largest charitable organization in the world and whose popes and priests often live simple lives, own no material belongings, give up material belongings of their own, give up families of their own , sexual relations, etc. And yet you bash them because someone felt God deserving enough to use the finest materials in constructing His buildings. I suppose you would have been someone who took issue with the lavishness and value that went into constructing the Ark of the Covenant, claiming it was a waste and the money should have been spent on the poor – LOL!

RightReason wrote:

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



I think you believe God is devoid of reason.

A statement that doesn’t address anything I said or even make sense.

I suggest you chose God as your authority and not the Church. As we know, the Vatican is extremely corrupt.

I suggest you listen to God – who tells us to listen to His Church

This just came across my Facebook feed today. A cute little article. There is nothing more misunderstood then the Church’s teaching on contraception. Again, you really ought to look into why all of Christendom believed and taught the immorality of contraception and what the Christ’s Church really has to say about the matter . . . you might be surprised . . .

https://ccli.org/2017/09/those-catholic ... raception/

[KenRU]

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

Why is it unreasonable? I see the very opposite – to be pro contraception -- as unreasonable.

Here is where your position fails to be reasonable, imo. Married couples who wish to not risk having a child, according to your argument, should no longer have sex as a means to show and express their love.

That is an unreasonable, and yes, archaic way of thinking.

For a married couple to limit how many children they can take care of is the wise thing to do, not sinful, and it can in no sensible way be called unreasonable.

The simple fact of the matter is that resources are limited. Living one’s life by knowing your limits (financially and emotionally) is smart. And, imo, teaching otherwise is selfish and counter-productive to a healthy society.

I find it sad that one would argue that “Gee Betty, you can’t afford to have any more children, oh well, you’d better stop having sex with your husband now� is the response endorsed by anyone, let alone an influential organization such as the Catholic Church. This response is decidedly not compassionate. And I say this as an ex-Catholic.

And obviously all of Christendom for almost 2000 years agreed with me.

Which I agree, is an argument that supports your point that tradition is important to the Catholic faith. But tradition only gets you so far when the same argument can be made to show ideas abandoned by the church – such as the belief at one time that unbaptized babies were going to hell. That was also a belief based upon traditional thinking.

What I would suggest as unreasonable is things like China’s one child policy or countries where mass sterilization is encouraged.

Which really has nothing to do with this conversation because the subject was choice for two consenting adults and what is considered sin.

Wow! How many children is too many? And who gets to decide? Are children for the rich?

The ironic part of this last statement is that if you think (rightly so) that more money means more options for families, then that is an argument to make contraceptive methods more affordable and more prevalent. Not less.

The fact of the matter is that kids are a monetary, emotional and physical drain on their parents. They are also the greatest thing that a person could ever experience. These two points of view are not exclusive. I say this as a parent who is very active in his son’s life.

But to say that a physical expression of a couple's love must end when they decide to not have any more children is simply a cruel position to hold. And it is frankly, imo, a sad one as well.

If I believed in a god, it wouldn’t be one that held such an anti-love stance : )

-all the best

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

Here is where your position fails to be reasonable, imo. Married couples who wish to not risk having a child, according to your argument, should no longer have sex as a means to show and express their love.

Absolutely incorrect. Not what I said—nor is that a teaching of the Church. A married couple should not abuse the gift of the marital act as given to us by God. This means they should not separate the inherent unitive nature of the sexual act. I likened it to bulimia where the individual wants the pleasure of eating, but then vomits up his/her food so as to prevent the natural consequences that occur from the act of eating. Such behavior is disordered and wrong.

A married couple can have an active and frequent sexual life AND do so without using contraception. If a couple knows the woman is ovulating (something quite easy to determine – it’s not rocket science) and the couple believes they should not have a child this month, they can abstain from sex for a couple of days. They can pretty much have sex the other 27 days of the month. I wouldn’t consider that meaning they cannot have sex to express their love. In fact, their actions in using self discipline for a couple of days actually is a beautiful demonstration of expressing their love for one another. It is taking responsibility and their commitment to one another seriously and wanting what is best for the other person. It’s love and builds intimacy.

That is an unreasonable, and yes, archaic way of thinking.

I agree if what you suggested was actually what I am arguing, but like I showed – it is not.

For a married couple to limit how many children they can take care of is the wise thing to do, not sinful, and it can in no sensible way be called unreasonable.

I couldn’t agree more and the Church teaches the very same thing.

The simple fact of the matter is that resources are limited. Living one’s life by knowing your limits (financially and emotionally) is smart. And, imo, teaching otherwise is selfish and counter-productive to a healthy society.

Agree again. But please be careful to not fall for imaginary fears and confuse needs with wants in this world.

I find it sad that one would argue that “Gee Betty, you can’t afford to have any more children, oh well, you’d better stop having sex with your husband now� is the response endorsed by anyone, let alone an influential organization such as the Catholic Church. This response is decidedly not compassionate. And I say this as an ex-Catholic.

Perhaps another example of someone who never knew the Church he left. I’m afraid you have been given inaccurate information.

Which I agree, is an argument that supports your point that tradition is important to the Catholic faith.

No, the point is to show all of Christendom – every Christian denomination, including our Jewish brothers and sisters all believed Christ and His Church taught the immorality of contraception from the beginning. For them Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were very clear on this matter. What changed? Did we receive new Scripture or Revelation in the 1930’s to cause Christendom to change her mind?

But tradition only gets you so far when the same argument can be made to show ideas abandoned by the church – such as the belief at one time that unbaptized babies were going to hell. That was also a belief based upon traditional thinking.

Again, I’m afraid you do not know the faith you abandoned. We can talk more about this topic if you like.


I think your post proves many do not understand the Church’s beautiful teaching in regards to love, marriage, sex, and family. Most people have no idea what the Church actually teaches. Nor are they able to see the beauty in God’s design for man. The Church wants what is best for her children. Only in living according to natural law and God’s design will man find true peace and happiness. Contrary to what many think today, contraception is not a solution. To think it is is to fail to understand LOVE (God).

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

RightReason wrote:

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

I know that but I am referring to laws throughout the OT which is supposed to be adhered by. According to the Bible, Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the law. He didn't say just Mosaic law.

Yes, so what don’t you understand? God’s people use to be commanded to offer animal sacrifices to demonstrate their faith and love of God. The command to offer animal sacrifices is no more – but the point of the law remains – that we are to show love and pay homage to God. The law is fulfilled. Honoring God’s gift to us of the marital act is to understand the meaning and purpose of His gift – using contraception shows one misunderstands sex, love, marriage, and family.

You are attempting to use the typical argument, that many non believers and atheists like to appeal to this as well, that since we no longer stone people to death we can go on to pick and choose which of God’s commands we are still expected to keep and which we can ignore. That itself shows a complete lack of knowledge of the purpose of the law. Just because we no longer stone people to death does not mean God is now cool with adultery. Clearly such a rationalization fails and renders your argument meaningless.

How ‘bout this – if you are confused on what moral laws human beings are subject to – observe man and his relationship with this world. Acknowledge the world and the way it works. Pay attention to God’s design of the human body, biology, form, function, shape, consequences of behavior, etc. An even bigger short cut and if one is Christian would be to listen to Christ’s Church. Christ left His Church in charge precisely for arguments over matters like this.

You don't seem to understand that God's laws and ways are absolute. They never change. It doesn't become redundant over time.

Trust me, the devil worms himself into churches. So what a church may think is from Jesus may actually just be from the devil himself.

This is true and who would the devil be more likely to attack? Would he bother with non threatening “churches�. Satan knows Christ’s Church on earth and is quite clever in attacking truth. Why do you think his greatest attacks are on the Church and the family?

All Churches are threatening as they threaten the gospel. So the devil controls the church which has the most power: the Vatican.

You do not take into account Satan. He can deceive those in the Church. I see it in my own church. We still have free will which means we aren't always sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

On the contrary, I do not underestimate the power of Satan. All the more reason to follow Christ’s established Church – not less. It would make Satan quite happy to make us think since the Church is comprised of fallible human beings, we need not listen to her.

Then you know that Satan lives in the Vatican?

But you seem to think that everything in Bible is truthful and is from God. It is immoral to commit adultery and that is why they were stoned in the OT. If God gave the law to have them put to death, what has changed? His values never change.

Leviticus 20:10

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Yes, I think everything in the Bible is truthful and from God, but like I’ve already explained earlier, one must first understand the law. It was never about the law for the sake of the law. Punishment was rendered to a Barbaric people in terms they could understand. Do I not cheat on my spouse because I don’t want to suffer the punishment? Or is it God’s hope that I don’t cheat on my spouse because I come to understand the law – it’s beauty and freedom in living out God’s command? God isn’t condemning contraception to make our lives difficult and miserable – the very opposite is true. You simply fail to get understand the law.

Stuff laws. I do as God says.

RightReason wrote:

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

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

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



The Vatican doesn't. How many paedophiles dwell there and the Pope refused to punish them?

<sigh> Well, I have to admit you lasted several posts before you brought up pedophilia – LOL!

Tell me, how many pedophiles dwell in families where other family members covered it up? How many pedophiles dwell in our school systems where schools did not bring attention to their schools in making known public such information? How many pedophiles exist in Christian and other religious groups whose identities were kept secret?


Statistically speaking, there are more public school teachers guilty of pedophilia than Catholic priests, so I’m guessing you are anti-education.

I'm not talking about non religious institutes! I'm talking about the Vatican! It is supposed to reflect God's glory.

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

Apparently the Church care about everyone, including Martians:

In a homily delivered Monday, Pope Francis said he'd totally baptize Martians if they showed up at the Vatican demanding to be baptized.
He was trying to illustrate the point that everyone has the right to receive the Holy Spirit -- even aliens from faraway planets.
" If tomorrow, for example, an expedition of Martians arrives and some of them come to us ... and if one of them says: 'Me, I want to be baptized!', what would happen?" the pontiff said, according to AFP.

http://time.com/97695/pope-francis-woul ... -martians/

Jesus is my authority, not weird Christian leaders' interpretations.

I really don’t know what to make of your comments. How are the Pope’s words here problematic? Someone is really reaching to bash the Church to bring up something like this as some kind of criticism. I agree with Pope Francis! Why wouldn’t you welcome martians into the Good News and salvation of Christ? It is very odd to me that you find his comments odd or as you say weird. What is weird about what he said? First, he was responding to a hypothetical question posed to him (not like he is declaring little green men on Mars). Second, there very well could be other planets with life forms – if that was God’s plan. Please tell me you don’t limit God’s ability. Third, what do you have against aliens and foreigners?

First of all, no one gets to demand baptism. So who the hell do they think these Martians are? The agenda here is to get used to people to accept the unveiling of extraterrestrials on earth and embrace them.

Here is something from the Ufology World Congress which happened on the 21st Sept.

INTENTION AND VISION:

To prepare a collective consciousness for extraterrestrial integration.

https://www.theufologyworldcongress.com/about

Aliens aren't good beings and would have no interest in Christ. Just ask those who have been abducted.

I have no problems with foreigners. They can't be classified under the same category as aliens.

I don't know where you are from but things aren't consistent in all countries. Many people who have too many children in South Africa live in shacks. They tend to burn down. The family loses all their possessions. Theft is a problem. Often children have to walk long distances to school wearing the shoes out.

Then let us, from more affluent countries, help them, by helping them build stronger safer homes they can call their own to raise their families. Let us help in building them more schools. If there aren’t enough homes or schools for children the solution is not to eliminate the children. Such a devastating mentality and not one that I could see the creator of life would be on board with.

But that is not life. Affluent countries cannot/won't change the poverty. We can have feeding schemes at school but there is so much theft! Please see the real world.

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



That's a selfish mentality. Does a child deserve to be born in these circumstances?

Who gets to decide quality of life?

Are you trying to tell me that this child has quality of life? Anyone with eyes to see can see that child is suffering. It is best not to be born in a war-torn country.

Yes, even Jesus though that way.

Matthew 24:19


How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

You realize these passages like yours above and mine below . . .

Luke 23:29
Look, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed.'

are confirming that God believes THAT is a horrible mentality, right? God is saying believe it or not, but there will actually be a time when people see barrenness and childlessness as a blessing(good). China’s one child policy is probably one of those prophetic moments God is referring to. God wasn’t predicting this is a good thing. It is a horrible thing. How do you not see it?

China is not what Jesus was referring to! He was referring to end times.

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?

I wasn't thinking of Down Symdrome. I was thinking of a baby who would be in constant pain.

Yes, yes, . . . always the rationalization – it’s really so the child doesn’t have to suffer. Unfortunately, the world thinks a Down Syndrome child does not have the kind of life they have deemed as right/good. This is precisely why Down Syndrome children are now aborted and never even given the chance to live. Because, well, as people like you say, it is really for their own good. I am thinking about them and what kind of life they would lead – emphasizing how unless one is strong and healthy and “perfect� he/she is of less value.

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

Stop appealing to authority. They aren't fallible.

The Church does have authority – given to her by Christ Himself AND although comprised of fallible human beings, she is infallible on her teachings in matters of faith and morals.

No. Not while paedophiles roam the church. They tell people they are the ultimate authority so they won't question their evil. And here is something to ponder:

The Prophecy Of Paul.

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears." Acts 20:29-31.

Church leaders should not be the authority but merely the example:

2 Corinthians 1:24


New Living Translation
But that does not mean we want to dominate you by telling you how to put your faith into practice. We want to work together with you so you will be full of joy, for it is by your own faith that you stand firm.

Let God decide what is best for a person's certain circumstances

Yes, let’s. Why tweak God’s design and plan.

God has plans but it was meant to be a plan in a perfect world. It most certainly is not.

And if the child lives years in constant suffering? Would you prefer that to preventing that child from being born at all never having suffered?

First, what do you consider constant suffering? Is even a person in a vegetative state considered in constant suffering? You don’t know what that individual is going through. Also, today physical pain can often be minimized via pain medication. Whose pain and suffering are we really talking about? There is much we can learn from suffering and constant pain is rarely a reality. Pain is typically temporary. Even a year can’t compare to eternity. And there are many circumstances when human beings have endured intense physical pain only to rise even stronger. Perhaps many have an unfounded fear of suffering. We live in a world that often does not understand there can be joy amid suffering. Mary & Joseph had a hard life – extreme poverty, watching their son be mocked and tortured and yet among this difficult life and intense sorrow, they no doubt experienced an indescribable joy. This is the Christian joy that many a non believer just doesn’t get.

There's no quality of life for a vegetative person. He/she has no brain waves. Believe it or not, hospitals need beds for others who need it. We must be unselfish in life.

What is there to learn about a child constantly suffering? What quality of life is there for a child to be on morphine for the rest of his/her life?

We show compassion in putting down an animal when they are suffering when its terminal. Yet people be entitled to assisted suicide by the recommendation of doctors?

The same church with paedophiles with the Vatican living in wanton luxury while others starve?

No, like I said the same Church that is the largest charitable organization in the world and whose popes and priests often live simple lives, own no material belongings, give up material belongings of their own, give up families of their own , sexual relations, etc. And yet you bash them because someone felt God deserving enough to use the finest materials in constructing His buildings. I suppose you would have been someone who took issue with the lavishness and value that went into constructing the Ark of the Covenant, claiming it was a waste and the money should have been spent on the poor – LOL!

This is not a funny issue. We are talking about the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope. What example is he setting? God does not want riches to be wasted on Him.

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 ... ays-study/

As for the Ark of the Covenant, Yahweh demanded it, not the Father.

RightReason wrote:

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



I think you believe God is devoid of reason.

A statement that doesn’t address anything I said or even make sense.

In other words, God is reasonable in that He knows this is not a perfect world.

I suggest you chose God as your authority and not the Church. As we know, the Vatican is extremely corrupt.

I suggest you listen to God – who tells us to listen to His Church

This just came across my Facebook feed today. A cute little article. There is nothing more misunderstood then the Church’s teaching on contraception. Again, you really ought to look into why all of Christendom believed and taught the immorality of contraception and what the Christ’s Church really has to say about the matter . . . you might be surprised . . .

https://ccli.org/2017/09/those-catholic ... raception/

He doesn't tell us to listen to corrupt churches. Don't see how the article strengthens your case.

[Aetixintro]

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?

I don't believe contraception is a sin for several reasons:
1. The Bible doesn't predict the Problem of Overpopulation
2. Religions are now modern and moderate (to very many)
3. The Golden Rule says that "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you" and that managing the upbringing of kids can be demanding in the modern World.

Good?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Wow, many of your comments in this last post strike me as very peculiar. You also continue to make the mistake of misapplying Scripture to fit your pre conceived Catholic hatred. It’s very telling.

You don't seem to understand that God's laws and ways are absolute. They never change. It doesn't become redundant over time.

This was my point in this thread. Truth doesn’t change and Christ’s Church FROM THE BEGINNING believed and taught the immorality of contraception. So, what changed?

God made them male and female from the beginning and said, “Be fruitful and multiply.�

“When you shall eat of the fruit of your hands, You will be happy and it will be well with you. 3Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine Within your house, Your children like olive plants Around your table.�

“so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.�

The first Church and all of Christendom interpreted Sacred Scripture as teaching contraception as wrong. In fact, so did all of our Jewish brothers and sisters. In fact, all of Christianity continued to teach the immorality of contraception until around 1930. To this day, only the Catholic Church has remained true to Christ’s teachings and not changed her teachings to fit the fashions of the day. Like we both said – truth doesn’t change.

God promised to remain with His Church and guide her in all truth. Scripture refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth – so, did Christ lie? Did He steer His Church wrong for over 1000 years? Did He mean it when He said, “He who hears you, hears me?� Did He mean it when He said, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven?�

To understand God’s laws as absolute, like you claim, is to accept His teaching regarding contraception.

All Churches are threatening as they threaten the gospel. So the devil controls the church which has the most power: the Vatican.

Ha! Your anti Catholic bias is showing. First, Scripture itself refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, so NO the Church does not threaten the gospel. Christ Himself told us to listen to His Church. The gospel is full of examples showing the set up, existence, and hierarchical structure even of this first church. No one can read Scripture and not acknowledge Christ established a church, so your words make no sense and show a clear misunderstanding of the Bible. How can all churches threaten the gospel when the gospel itself praises Christ’s Church?

Then you know that Satan lives in the Vatican?

Satan can worm his way into anywhere and why would he bother attacking those who don’t even hold the Truth in the first place. He’s kinda clever like that.

Stuff laws. I do as God says.

Really? So, you listen to His Church? “He who hears you, hears me�? “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.�

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/

RightReason wrote:


I really don’t know what to make of your comments. How are the Pope’s words here problematic? Someone is really reaching to bash the Church to bring up something like this as some kind of criticism. I agree with Pope Francis! Why wouldn’t you welcome martians into the Good News and salvation of Christ? It is very odd to me that you find his comments odd or as you say weird. What is weird about what he said? First, he was responding to a hypothetical question posed to him (not like he is declaring little green men on Mars). Second, there very well could be other planets with life forms – if that was God’s plan. Please tell me you don’t limit God’s ability. Third, what do you have against aliens and foreigners?



First of all, no one gets to demand baptism. So who the hell do they think these Martians are? The agenda here is to get used to people to accept the unveiling of extraterrestrials on earth and embrace them.

Here is something from the Ufology World Congress which happened on the 21st Sept.

INTENTION AND VISION:

To prepare a collective consciousness for extraterrestrial integration.

https://www.theufologyworldcongress.com/about

Aliens aren't good beings and would have no interest in Christ. Just ask those who have been abducted.

I have no problems with foreigners. They can't be classified under the same category as aliens.

And you think the Pope’s comments are weird? I truly am at a loss as how to respond to your UFO ology? I am not sure what kind of new age “ology� you may be into, but it hasn’t really a place in this thread or for you slamming the Pope because the Pope said if there were martians, he would welcome them and share with them the Good News.

RightReason wrote:


Then let us, from more affluent countries, help them, by helping them build stronger safer homes they can call their own to raise their families. Let us help in building them more schools. If there aren’t enough homes or schools for children the solution is not to eliminate the children. Such a devastating mentality and not one that I could see the creator of life would be on board with.



But that is not life. Affluent countries cannot/won't change the poverty. We can have feeding schemes at school but there is so much theft! Please see the real world.

Better off countries do and are helping less fortunate ones, so once again I truly do not understand your comments. And I reiterate how odd it is to think the best thing we can do for other countries is to eliminate their children.

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 didn’t realize when I started this conversation with you, that you were – let’s see how can I phrase this in a more charitable way – one of those who take bits and pieces from Scripture and misapplies certain passages to support their existing speculative theories. Now that I see the angle you are coming from, I feel guilty trying to logically argue with you.

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.

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.

Church leaders should not be the authority but merely the example:

2 Corinthians 1:24


New Living Translation
But that does not mean we want to dominate you by telling you how to put your faith into practice. We want to work together with you so you will be full of joy, for it is by your own faith that you stand firm.

Oooh but you skipped all the Scripture showing that Christ’s Church does have authority. I already posted some earlier in this post and we can discuss the authority of Christ’s Church in more detail in another thread if you wish.

There's no quality of life for a vegetative person. He/she has no brain waves. Believe it or not, hospitals need beds for others who need it. We must be unselfish in life.

Yes, let us kill the weak and most vulnerable among us to make room for the healthier and stronger.

What is there to learn about a child constantly suffering?

Maybe that all life has value – not just the healthy and strong. Maybe that they help us stop for a moment and think about what is really important. Maybe they help us recognize we are all on a journey and it doesn’t end here. Maybe they teach us it isn’t about what you can do, but about who you are.

This is not a funny issue. We are talking about the head of the Catholic Church, the Pope. What example is he setting? God does not want riches to be wasted on Him.

Any luxury in Catholic Churches is not for the Pope or her priests. In fact, most priests, Bishops, etc. live quite simply in modest accommodations. Churches were always built using the finest as tribute to God and also to lift the soul to Christ. For some, who live modestly and have very little, the Church is where they can go to see some beauty. The stain glass windows and gold chalices lift one’s soul – they take the person away from perhaps their less than ideal setting and foster contemplation and turning ones eyes toward God. I think perhaps you simply do not understand.

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.

In other words, God is reasonable in that He knows this is not a perfect world.

I agree with this. And precisely why He guides His Church to teach the immorality of contraception. Because He is reasonable and knows we aren’t perfect. God loves us too much to not help us improve. He wants more for us and our goal IS to be like Him. And perfection can only be found in Truth.

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.�

[KenRU]

A married couple can have an active and frequent sexual life AND do so without using contraception. If a couple knows the woman is ovulating (something quite easy to determine – it’s not rocket science) and the couple believes they should not have a child this month, they can abstain from sex for a couple of days. They can pretty much have sex the other 27 days of the month. I wouldn’t consider that meaning they cannot have sex to express their love. In fact, their actions in using self discipline for a couple of days actually is a beautiful demonstration of expressing their love for one another. It is taking responsibility and their commitment to one another seriously and wanting what is best for the other person. It’s love and builds intimacy.

And that is horrible advice. I’m sorry. This position without a doubt will yield (and does yield as statistics consistently show) more unwanted pregnancies.

From a Princeton Website:

During the first two days of a woman’s cycle (day 1 being your first day of bleeding), the average risk of pregnancy is virtually zero. After the first two days, the risk starts to rise steadily, reaching 9% on or about day 13. Then it begins to decline slowly until it levels off at about 1% on day 25. It stays at about 1% for the rest of your cycle. (The average monthly cycle lasts 29 days, but it is perfectly normal to have a cycle that lasts as little as 20 days or less or as long as 40 days or more.)

Link: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html

Without a doubt, the position you and the Catholic Church hold on contraception being a sin yields a greater risk of pregnancy and less an opportunity for married couples to express their love physically. The facts are undeniable.

That is an unreasonable, and yes, archaic way of thinking.

I agree if what you suggested was actually what I am arguing, but like I showed – it is not.

Your line in Post 38 makes me think this: Then wouldn’t it be extremely irresponsible to engage in sexual activity if one was not prepared to be a parent? No contraception is 100% effective. If you are having sex, you better realize you could be creating a new life – another human being.

Given this logic, and what you denied above, then it would be irresponsible to have sex (to show love and affection in a marriage) and not use birth control – as birth control is far more effective than without.

You can’t in one breath say, don’t have unprotected sex if you don’t wish to have babies, and in the next say, A married couple can have an active and frequent sexual life AND do so without using contraception.

Your method will without a doubt yield more unwanted pregnancies.

For a married couple to limit how many children they can take care of is the wise thing to do, not sinful, and it can in no sensible way be called unreasonable.

I couldn’t agree more and the Church teaches the very same thing.

The problem is that their method of accomplishing this flies in the face of actual science. See above. Unprotected sex yields unwanted pregnancies. No way around this fact.

The simple fact of the matter is that resources are limited. Living one’s life by knowing your limits (financially and emotionally) is smart. And, imo, teaching otherwise is selfish and counter-productive to a healthy society.

Agree again. But please be careful to not fall for imaginary fears and confuse needs with wants in this world.

I’m not, but I appreciate your concern. Advocating unprotected sex in a marriage and failing to agree to the amount of risk one takes of unwanted pregnancies is not sound advice.

I find it sad that one would argue that “Gee Betty, you can’t afford to have any more children, oh well, you’d better stop having sex with your husband now� is the response endorsed by anyone, let alone an influential organization such as the Catholic Church. This response is decidedly not compassionate. And I say this as an ex-Catholic.

Perhaps another example of someone who never knew the Church he left. I’m afraid you have been given inaccurate information.

I was speaking in hyperbole. But the argument stands, as you can see above. The church’s message (and yours) is flawed logic and flawed science.

Which I agree, is an argument that supports your point that tradition is important to the Catholic faith.

No, the point is to show all of Christendom – every Christian denomination, including our Jewish brothers and sisters all believed Christ and His Church taught the immorality of contraception from the beginning. For them Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were very clear on this matter. What changed? Did we receive new Scripture or Revelation in the 1930’s to cause Christendom to change her mind?

Actually, your sentence should have started off with a Yes. Everything you said above is an argument from tradition, which I agreed is a valid argument for a religion to espouse.

Not sure why you would start off disagreeing, then end agreeing with me? Curious.

But tradition only gets you so far when the same argument can be made to show ideas abandoned by the church – such as the belief at one time that unbaptized babies were going to hell. That was also a belief based upon traditional thinking.

Again, I’m afraid you do not know the faith you abandoned. We can talk more about this topic if you like.

Unbaptized Babies: from a Vatican Website, article published in 2007:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

Link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... ts_en.html

Emphasis above added by me. The Catholic Church could only come up with reasons to be hopeful that unbaptized babies will end up in Heaven. In essence, the Catholic Church for many years was unsure of how to reconcile unbaptized babies with the importance of being baptized.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement that all unbaptized babies are going to heaven, is it?

But we can talk more about this if you like.

I think your post proves many do not understand the Church’s beautiful teaching in regards to love, marriage, sex, and family. Most people have no idea what the Church actually teaches.

I’m fairly confident that I have a working knowledge of the faith I left. But I am always willing to learn more.

Nor are they able to see the beauty in God’s design for man.

Well, since I don’t believe in god, you’re right about me not seeing an imaginary design – a very flawed one too, btw.

The Church wants what is best for her children.

No, advocating unprotected sex and then downplaying the risk of pregnancy is not what is best for her “children�. It is very poor parenting advice.

Only in living according to natural law and God’s design will man find true peace and happiness. Contrary to what many think today, contraception is not a solution. To think it is is to fail to understand LOVE (God).

Opinion noted.


All the best

[RightReason]

[Replying to KenRU]

And that is horrible advice. I’m sorry. This position without a doubt will yield (and does yield as statistics consistently show) more unwanted pregnancies.

From a Princeton Website:

During the first two days of a woman’s cycle (day 1 being your first day of bleeding), the average risk of pregnancy is virtually zero. After the first two days, the risk starts to rise steadily, reaching 9% on or about day 13. Then it begins to decline slowly until it levels off at about 1% on day 25. It stays at about 1% for the rest of your cycle. (The average monthly cycle lasts 29 days, but it is perfectly normal to have a cycle that lasts as little as 20 days or less or as long as 40 days or more.)

Link: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html

Without a doubt, the position you and the Catholic Church hold on contraception being a sin yields a greater risk of pregnancy and less an opportunity for married couples to express their love physically. The facts are undeniable.

What you are describing is NOT NFP, rather the old rhythm method that was based on the average woman’s cycle. That is not what NFP is based on. Yes, cycles can last for 40 days or more that is why women are taught to check cervical mucus, position of cervix, body temperature, and other clues. So, first you do not understand the method I was suggesting that is available if a couple so chooses. Second, you do know NFP is not a teaching of the Church. The only reason I brought up NFP was because it is something that a couple can practice that does not violate Catholic teaching. 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.

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


With correct use, the failure rate of NFP is similar to those of more commonly accepted hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods. The symptothermal method, which monitors basal body temperature, cervical secretions, cervical position, and cycle patterns to predict periods of fertility, has been proven effective


NFP is effective and offers benefits that hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods cannot, including no or low cost, ease of use, no systemic adverse effects, and no medication interactions.4,5,10 NFP is safe for women in whom hormonal methods are undesirable because of medical comorbidities. NFP empowers the couple in understanding fertility, increases relationship satisfaction, and is associated with lower rates of elective termination.4,5,8 More than 90 percent of TwoDay users and their partners report being satisfied with this method.5,10 Some physicians may avoid recommending NFP because they think periodic abstinence will interfere with a couple's sex life; however, couples who use NFP have equal or more frequent sex compared with non-NFP users.8 Additionally, knowledge of fertility awareness can help a couple conceive effectively, without the delay in return to fertility that occurs with some artificial contraceptive methods.8 To make NFP methods easier to follow, computer programs are available that help a woman track her daily symptoms and fertile days.11

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

So as you see, it is the Church who recognizes the facts. FACT: the inherent nature of the sexual act has a procreative function. That is called acknowledging the science. Therefore, anyone who engages in the sexual act sure better recognize the possibility they could become a parent by engaging in the behavior they are about to engage in. This is true for the pill, condoms, vasectomy, NFP, the patch, etc. None of them are 100% effective and all have user error. So, again if it is a matter of life and death, you not have a baby, then don’t have sex. If however, you acknowledge and recognize the inherent nature of the sexual act, but have some serious concerns about having a child right now, then you ought to consider NFP. 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.

Given this logic, and what you denied above, then it would be irresponsible to have sex (to show love and affection in a marriage) and not use birth control – as birth control is far more effective than without.

You can’t in one breath say, don’t have unprotected sex if you don’t wish to have babies, and in the next say, A married couple can have an active and frequent sexual life AND do so without using contraception.

Your method will without a doubt yield more unwanted pregnancies.

Nothing is 100% effective other than abstinence, so no NFP would not yield more unwanted pregnancies. What yields unwanted pregnancy is engaging in sex and not wanting children.

The problem is that their method of accomplishing this flies in the face of actual science.

Absolutely false. I am using science. See above. Are you?

Unprotected sex yields unwanted pregnancies. No way around this fact.

Wrong. Unprotected sex has the potential to create babies, as does “protected� sex. The wanted or unwanted part does not change this.

Advocating unprotected sex in a marriage and failing to agree to the amount of risk one takes of unwanted pregnancies is not sound advice.

Who is failing to acknowledge the risk? I’ve said from the beginning when engaging in the sexual act, conception is possible. That’s the nature of the sexual act. And why the Church teaches sex is something to be engaged in by a married couple open to such a possibility.

Actually, your sentence should have started off with a Yes. Everything you said above is an argument from tradition, which I agreed is a valid argument for a religion to espouse.

Not sure why you would start off disagreeing, then end agreeing with me? Curious.

Because you were arguing the only reason the Church teaches the immorality of contraception is because of Tradition. LOL! That isn’t why the Church teaches this truth. The Church has traditionally taught this because it’s true. She doesn’t teach this today, because they taught it 2000 years ago, rather they taught it 2000 years ago because it was true then and it is true now.

Unbaptized Babies: from a Vatican Website, article published in 2007:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

Link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... c_con_cfai...

Emphasis above added by me. The Catholic Church could only come up with reasons to be hopeful that unbaptized babies will end up in Heaven. In essence, the Catholic Church for many years was unsure of how to reconcile unbaptized babies with the importance of being baptized.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement that all unbaptized babies are going to heaven, is it?

What isn’t a ringing endorsement is what you’ve posted as some kind of proof to your original comment.

The Church has admitted from the beginning it has not been revealed to her what happens to unbaptized babies, but that there are theological reasons to conclude they go to heaven.

Why does this bother you?

No, advocating unprotected sex and then downplaying the risk of pregnancy is not what is best for her “children�. It is very poor parenting advice.

Again, you seem to have it completely backwards what the Church actually teaches. Since when has the Catholic Church ever downplayed the possibility of pregnancy in the sexual act? She teaches and proclaims the very opposite. Please educate yourself.

All the best

Back at ya

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

And that is horrible advice. I’m sorry. This position without a doubt will yield (and does yield as statistics consistently show) more unwanted pregnancies.

From a Princeton Website:

During the first two days of a woman’s cycle (day 1 being your first day of bleeding), the average risk of pregnancy is virtually zero. After the first two days, the risk starts to rise steadily, reaching 9% on or about day 13. Then it begins to decline slowly until it levels off at about 1% on day 25. It stays at about 1% for the rest of your cycle. (The average monthly cycle lasts 29 days, but it is perfectly normal to have a cycle that lasts as little as 20 days or less or as long as 40 days or more.)

Link: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/risk.html

Without a doubt, the position you and the Catholic Church hold on contraception being a sin yields a greater risk of pregnancy and less an opportunity for married couples to express their love physically. The facts are undeniable.

What you are describing is NOT NFP, rather the old rhythm method that was based on the average woman’s cycle. That is not what NFP is based on. Yes, cycles can last for 40 days or more that is why women are taught to check cervical mucus, position of cervix, body temperature, and other clues. So, first you do not understand the method I was suggesting that is available if a couple so chooses.

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

The efficacy rates of FAB methods vary widely; like all other methods, they depend on how well couples use them. According to Contraceptive Technology, those who used FAB methods correctly and consistently saw failure rates between 0.4 and 5 percent. Under typical use, however, the failure rates are between 12 and 24 percent depending on the specific FAB method.

Link: https://rewire.news/article/2015/01/23/ ... ommitment/ (note, the article has links to the actual data, if you are interested)

Second, you do know NFP is not a teaching of the Church. The only reason I brought up NFP was because it is something that a couple can practice that does not violate Catholic teaching.

It’s been a while, so please enlighten me (and others here) about the church’s position on sex.

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.

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

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.

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.

NFP is effective and offers benefits that hormonal and barrier contraceptive methods cannot, including no or low cost, ease of use, no systemic adverse effects, and no medication interactions.4,5,10 NFP is safe for women in whom hormonal methods are undesirable because of medical comorbidities. NFP empowers the couple in understanding fertility, increases relationship satisfaction, and is associated with lower rates of elective termination.4,5,8 More than 90 percent of TwoDay users and their partners report being satisfied with this method.5,10 Some physicians may avoid recommending NFP because they think periodic abstinence will interfere with a couple's sex life; however, couples who use NFP have equal or more frequent sex compared with non-NFP users.8 Additionally, knowledge of fertility awareness can help a couple conceive effectively, without the delay in return to fertility that occurs with some artificial contraceptive methods.8 To make NFP methods easier to follow, computer programs are available that help a woman track her daily symptoms and fertile days.11

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

And now, from your same website, an opposing point of view:

Most of the reported data on the effectiveness of NFP is based on perfect use. The complexity and diligence required by many NFP methods make them unrealistic and untenable for many persons. With typical use, up to 25 percent of women using NFP will become pregnant within the first year,1 which is higher than the rate of pregnancy for typical users of condoms (18 percent).4 As an example of the difference between perfect and typical use, withdrawal has an unintended pregnancy rate of 4 percent with perfect use, but a 22 percent rate with typical use.5 Although this is far lower than the pregnancy rate when no contraceptive method is used (85 percent), it is hard to argue that withdrawal is effective in comparison with most non-NFP options. Of the NFP methods, only lactational amenorrhea has been acknowledged as highly effective. However, this method is limited to women who are exclusively breastfeeding, are less than six months postpartum, and have amenorrhea.6

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.

That is called acknowledging the science. Therefore, anyone who engages in the sexual act sure better recognize the possibility they could become a parent by engaging in the behavior they are about to engage in. This is true for the pill, condoms, vasectomy, NFP, the patch, etc. None of them are 100% effective and all have user error. So, again if it is a matter of life and death, you not have a baby, then don’t have sex. If however, you acknowledge and recognize the inherent nature of the sexual act, but have some serious concerns about having a child right now, then you ought to consider NFP.

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.

As you say: That is called acknowledging the science.

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.

Given this logic, and what you denied above, then it would be irresponsible to have sex (to show love and affection in a marriage) and not use birth control – as birth control is far more effective than without.

You can’t in one breath say, don’t have unprotected sex if you don’t wish to have babies, and in the next say, A married couple can have an active and frequent sexual life AND do so without using contraception.

Your method will without a doubt yield more unwanted pregnancies.

Nothing is 100% effective other than abstinence, so no NFP would not yield more unwanted pregnancies.

Yes it does. The statistics are not in your favor here.

What yields unwanted pregnancy is engaging in sex and not wanting children.

Which is what we are discussing.

The problem is that their method of accomplishing this flies in the face of actual science.

Absolutely false. I am using science.

If you would like, we could have a race to see who can find more science articles that confirms their position. I’m betting far more data and studies show that contraceptive use is more effective than NFP.

See above.

Yes, you should.

Are you?

I did, and linked the sources above for you.

Unprotected sex yields unwanted pregnancies. No way around this fact.

Wrong. Unprotected sex has the potential to create babies, as does “protected� sex. The wanted or unwanted part does not change this.

The subject was about the risks of unprotected sex and pregnancies. The “wanted� part you mention allows us to discuss which “risk� is greater. The data shows NFP is the greater of the two.

Advocating unprotected sex in a marriage and failing to agree to the amount of risk one takes of unwanted pregnancies is not sound advice.

Who is failing to acknowledge the risk? I’ve said from the beginning when engaging in the sexual act, conception is possible. That’s the nature of the sexual act. And why the Church teaches sex is something to be engaged in by a married couple open to such a possibility.

When you incorrectly assert that the NFP risk is equivalent to the contraceptive risk, you are doing just what I said.

Actually, your sentence should have started off with a Yes. Everything you said above is an argument from tradition, which I agreed is a valid argument for a religion to espouse.

Not sure why you would start off disagreeing, then end agreeing with me? Curious.

Because you were arguing the only reason the Church teaches the immorality of contraception is because of Tradition. LOL! That isn’t why the Church teaches this truth. The Church has traditionally taught this because it’s true. She doesn’t teach this today, because they taught it 2000 years ago, rather they taught it 2000 years ago because it was true then and it is true now.

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.

Unbaptized Babies: from a Vatican Website, article published in 2007:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

Link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... c_con_cfai...

Emphasis above added by me. The Catholic Church could only come up with reasons to be hopeful that unbaptized babies will end up in Heaven. In essence, the Catholic Church for many years was unsure of how to reconcile unbaptized babies with the importance of being baptized.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement that all unbaptized babies are going to heaven, is it?

What isn’t a ringing endorsement is what you’ve posted as some kind of proof to your original comment.

The Church has admitted from the beginning it has not been revealed to her what happens to unbaptized babies, but that there are theological reasons to conclude they go to heaven.

Why does this bother you?

It doesn’t, but you missed my point then. 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.

Tradition is also open to interpretation.

No, advocating unprotected sex and then downplaying the risk of pregnancy is not what is best for her “children�. It is very poor parenting advice.

Again, you seem to have it completely backwards what the Church actually teaches.

Which is?

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.

She teaches and proclaims the very opposite.

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

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.