Jump to content
Bishop21234

Contraceptives

Recommended Posts


My personal opinion is the only acceptable contraceptive is a condom.

That seems really arbitrary to me.

In my case, I think anything but abortifacients are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth control can (not saying will or always does) cause problems if you want to become pregnant, yes it is rare but it can cause problems, where as condoms don't harm fertility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember you identify as Catholic? How so you justify, as a Catholic, disobeying the authoritative judgement of the Magisterium in this matter, as well as the teachings of the Popes? Noting that the Catholic stance on contraception, remarkably, remains a mirror image of that taught previous to Vatican II as well. And even so, why are condoms morally superior to the pill; seeing as, unlike the pill, condoms have no benefits beyond contraceptive.?

I'm not going to quote an encyclical here, because the Catholic teaching here is famously well-known. While the ban on contraceptives is admittedly inconvenient if you want to have sex but disdain children, there are morally-sound alternatives (hello, natural family planning!). Ultimately however, if you understand sex and marriage within a Catholic context, the ban on contraceptives is the only stance which makes sense.

If you're a Protestant, I suppose that ones stance on contraceptives depends on what one views the ultimate aim of marriage as; I know that many Protestants use it, but that premarital sex is still verboten, so I can't really speak to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember you identify as Catholic? How so you justify, as a Catholic, disobeying the authoritative judgement of the Magisterium in this matter, as well as the teachings of the Popes? Noting that the Catholic stance on contraception, remarkably, remains a mirror image of that taught previous to Vatican II as well. And even so, why are condoms morally superior to the pill; seeing as, unlike the pill, condoms have no benefits beyond contraceptive.?

I'm not going to quote an encyclical here, because the Catholic teaching here is famously well-known. While the ban on contraceptives is admittedly inconvenient if you want to have sex but disdain children, there are morally-sound alternatives (hello, natural family planning!). Ultimately however, if you understand sex and marriage within a Catholic context, the ban on contraceptives is the only stance which makes sense.

If you're a Protestant, I suppose that ones stance on contraceptives depends on what one views the ultimate aim of marriage as; I know that many Protestants use it, but that premarital sex is still verboten, so I can't really speak to that.

Honestly I don't follow ALL of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes I guess I am technically going against the Pope, but sadly all of us go against God every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't follow ALL of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes I guess I am technically going against the Pope, but sadly all of us go against God every day.

 

While there is something to be said about a birth-control culture that fosters a license for licentiousness, I simply believe that the Pope is in error on this point. I do not expect the Church to abandon its own position, because of my own beliefs like many do. Yet, I cannot assent to a Church ideology that is at odds with the natural law. I find the Vatican Ideology to be anti-relational, and an ideology that completely denigrates the notion of Love. It is non-sensical to say that oral sex for pleasure between a married couple is immoral. 

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

I personally think all of it's fine... Except permanent infertility treatments and those weird mechanical fans girls can have put into... that place >.> I've heard (though never read, myself; so I could be wrong) that the Bible talks against becoming a eunuch or permanently becoming infertile, and the other thing is just plain weird, imo cx

 

Spermicides, "the pill", infertility shots, etc. are all fine by my book. I personally would never be caught dead using a condom x.x It takes away so much from sex, and I personally wouldn't want to screw a piece of rubber and... well, obvious other take-aways are obvious cx

 

Pretty much all of medicine has "One in a hundred thousand"-level side effects. Birth control is no different, but that doesn't mean it's dangerous. I mean, you can get total'ed by an oncoming bus, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't drive. The subject of contraceptives is all by opinion, but as per mine: a condom would be dead last on my list of choices xc

Edited by Mike Spero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don't follow ALL of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes I guess I am technically going against the Pope, but sadly all of us go against God every day.

So are you saying you are admittedly and knowingly in the wrong, but that's okay, or that the Catholic teaching is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying you are admittedly and knowingly in the wrong, but that's okay, or that the Catholic teaching is wrong?

You're putting me between a rock and a hard place, I am not saying ANYTHING bad about the Catholic Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're putting me between a rock and a hard place, I am not saying ANYTHING bad about the Catholic Church.

I'm just trying to figure out whether you to think you're wrong or the Catholic Church is wrong. If you go against their teachings on this, one of you must be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issues with contraceptives.

 

Just as a side note, more girls than you realise will be taking a contraceptive pill, regardless of how sexually active or inactive they are, as it is a treatment for a plethora of medical conditions. 

 

I personally think all of it's fine... Except permanent infertility treatments and those weird mechanical fans girls can have put into... that place >.> I've heard (though never read, myself; so I could be wrong) that the Bible talks against becoming a eunuch or permanently becoming infertile, and the other thing is just plain weird, imo cx

 

Spermicides, "the pill", infertility shots, etc. are all fine by my book. I personally would never be caught dead using a condom x.x It takes away so much from sex, and I personally wouldn't want to screw a piece of rubber and... well, obvious other take-aways are obvious cx

 

Pretty much all of medicine has "One in a hundred thousand"-level side effects. Birth control is no different, but that doesn't mean it's dangerous. I mean, you can get total'ed by an oncoming bus, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't drive. The subject of contraceptives is all by opinion, but as per mine: a condom would be dead last on my list of choices xc

 

And yet, condoms are still the only contraceptive that protect against STDs/STIs and pregnancy, require no pre-planning, and are 98% effective. 

 

Also: what on earth are you talking about, mechanical fans? o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're putting me between a rock and a hard place, I am not saying ANYTHING bad about the Catholic Church.

Yes, yes you are. Now of course, within a Catholic perspective it is quite impossible for an authoritative teaching of the Church to be "wrong" because the Catholic Church is indefectible; and indeed I would argue that Church teachings on contraceptives would fall under the heading of the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium -- or even extraordinary Papal infallibility, but it has been a minute since I've read Humanae Vitae -- and therefore not abiding by those teachings means you don't think you have to, or that you don't mean they are just. If it is the former, you are flouting the authority of Christ's Church and His Vicar; in which case you may want to correct your grievous error. If it is the latter, you either need to find a way to reconcile that with the Church's indefectibility or, again, correct your error.

Either way, your refusal to submit to the authority of the Church reflects negatively on the Church and demonstrates how little you must think of her and the Popes which serve as her temporal head. Caleb is putting you between a rock and a hard place, because you *are*. Now, to paraphrase a priest-polemicist of yore, no one can pretend it is easy to obey the high and noble law of Jesus Christ; and as we are only too human we often fail. But that does not mean we are not obligated to try, or to admit our fault when we fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes you are. Now of course, within a Catholic perspective it is quite impossible for an authoritative teaching of the Church to be "wrong" because the Catholic Church is indefectible; and indeed I would argue that Church teachings on contraceptives would fall under the heading of the ordinary infallibility of the Magisterium -- or even extraordinary Papal infallibility, but it has been a minute since I've read Humanae Vitae -- and therefore not abiding by those teachings means you don't think you have to, or that you don't mean they are just. If it is the former, you are flouting the authority of Christ's Church and His Vicar; in which case you may want to correct your grievous error. If it is the latter, you either need to find a way to reconcile that with the Church's indefectibility or, again, correct your error.

Either way, your refusal to submit to the authority of the Church reflects negatively on the Church and demonstrates how little you must think of her and the Popes which serve as her temporal head. Caleb is putting you between a rock and a hard place, because you *are*. Now, to paraphrase a priest-polemicist of yore, no one can pretend it is easy to obey the high and noble law of Jesus Christ; and as we are only too human we often fail. But that does not mean we are not obligated to try, or to admit our fault when we fail.

Coming from the Man who isn't even sure the current Pope is properly elected or the current Magesterium has infallibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the Man who isn't even sure the current Pope is properly elected or the current Magesterium has infallibility.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, and the principles involved and the reasons for doing so (I.e. for adopting the sede position) are entirely different; and again, not relevant. Rejecting a doctrine of the church that has remained unchanged and consistently advocated by popes before and after VII, and trying to explain immense changes to doctrine and reconcile those with the aforementioned indefectible nature of the church; are horses of a different colour. If you disagree with what I said, say so and state your reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes you are. Now of course, within a Catholic perspective it is quite impossible for an authoritative teaching of the Church to be "wrong" because the Catholic Church is indefectible...

 

It is this idea that I think many Catholics doubt. It is the line of the central authority, but I imagine (from my experience) that many bishops, priests, deacons and lay persons doubt the infallibility of the Magisterium. I am not convinced that the current conception of Magisterium is proven from early Christianity. Early Christianity is decidedly Catholic/Orthodox, but I am doubtful of the authoritarian, intensely dogmatic current structure of the Church. Such is not to say I think we should have a democratic sort of government in the Church. While I am a staunch advocate of radical democracy in politics, I am definitely in the tradition of philosopher-kings for the Church. Theology should not be the province of majority vote.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is this idea that I think many Catholics doubt. It is the line of the central authority, but I imagine (from my experience) that many bishops, priests, deacons and lay persons doubt the infallibility of the Magisterium.

This is quite possibly true.

But they're *wrong*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Catholic and, admittedly, this is something I've struggled with.

 

I get where the OP is coming from because "BC = Bad, Barrier = less bad" is a position I've found myself drawn to. The idea that led me there was that the primary "sin" of birth control was the possible destruction of a zygote. Sperm and Egg are two separate things. Parts of mom. Parts of dad. But at conception (defined as sperm meets egg for my line of thinking) zygote = it's own distinct entity not to be damaged. With this definition "Possible Abortificants" gets very very broad but *generally* wouldn't include condoms.

 

At current I don't know where I stand. In theory I actually kinda like the Catholic church's teaching but then you get to issues like my little sister for whom getting pregnant (without everything being HIGHLY planned from the get go) would almost certainly mean miscarriage or a child with lots of medical issues (Type 1 Diabetic with pretty "nutty" A1Cs despite judicious management). By the Catholic definition if she were to get married, use a condom to prevent a pregnancy which would most certainly cause issues for her and her child, but then further her family other ways (She wants to adopt one day), this invalidates the whole sha-bang and... idk... It just doesn't seem right.

 

Certainly I think BC should be used with great thought and caution. I also thing the health effects are something most woman today arn't really aware of and should think more about. But idk... It's these exceptional cases that get me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marley, I am not too highly versed in moral theology; but I seem to recall that there is some leeway viz. contraceptives in circumstances like those of your sister. I'd have to dig a little, but I'm fairly sure that exceptions do exist. Just by the by.

Edited by Lefebvre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. I've dug around and it gets a wee bit dicey.

 

There is some wiggle room if BC is used to correct a problem and the correction of that problem just also *happens* to have the side effect of temporary infertility. But BC isn't used to treat Diabetes so.... no luck.

 

Most of the (VERY conservative {though not necessarily traditional}) people/priests I've talked with on the subject game me a sort of "It's just a cross she has to carry... Have you heard of NFP?" line. Which, is fine... I guess... but I mean would it really be so sinful to throw a condom into the mix occasionally just to kinda make sure things are safe? I mean I know a lot of couples practicing NFP... and I know a lot of Catholic couples who have kids despite their "two year plan". I think of my friends mom who had a legitimate mental/emotional breakdown before having kiddo number 9 (she nearly died with kiddo #8) after practicing NFP (kid was not planned) and I just... ugh.

Edited by Marley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all Catholics are crazy. :P

 

In and of itself BC is fine. There's no good reason why it shouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike Spero

I was going to post in this thread, but now I'm kind of scared to.

You people intimidate me.

Christian teens often equal:

 

expert-tips-on-child-anger_364x200_10766

 

Plus

 

d2whj5t.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

It's quite the combo cx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. I've dug around and it gets a wee bit dicey.

 

There is some wiggle room if BC is used to correct a problem and the correction of that problem just also *happens* to have the side effect of temporary infertility. But BC isn't used to treat Diabetes so.... no luck.

 

Most of the (VERY conservative {though not necessarily traditional}) people/priests I've talked with on the subject game me a sort of "It's just a cross she has to carry... Have you heard of NFP?" line. Which, is fine... I guess... but I mean would it really be so sinful to throw a condom into the mix occasionally just to kinda make sure things are safe? I mean I know a lot of couples practicing NFP... and I know a lot of Catholic couples who have kids despite their "two year plan". I think of my friends mom who had a legitimate mental/emotional breakdown before having kiddo number 9 (she nearly died with kiddo #8) after practicing NFP (kid was not planned) and I just... ugh.

Hmm. I know a few canon law hobbyists, I'll ask around. "It's just a cross she has to carry" is probably true, but probably could be handled better at a pastoral level. And Ananas, unless you take a very strict biblical view of onanism or believe that the primary aim of sex/marriage is procreation; then you're right. But from a Catholic viewpoint of marriage and sexuality, it is an eminently sensible proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marley, I am not too highly versed in moral theology; but I seem to recall that there is some leeway viz. contraceptives in circumstances like those of your sister. I'd have to dig a little, but I'm fairly sure that exceptions do exist. Just by the by.

 

Really? Because I asked the traditionalist members at Phatmass and they told me no. I have many health problems as you well know, so for me reproducing my genetic line is out of the question. I am not sure if I could live with myself if I gave birth to a child and have him/her go through such hardships. Yet, I aim to get married and adopt a child. I want to be a father. So the logical thing for me is to get a vasectomy. No Catholic I have talked to has said there are exceptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×