Posted on 06/10/2018 6:42:31 PM PDT by marshmallow
June 5, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Using contraception is an “intrinsic evil” in all circumstances because it “cuts off one of the goals of marriage which is an openness to life,” Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann told LifeSiteNews.
Any question on this issue lies on the level of moral culpability for those who do use it, he added.
“Circumstances can affect the culpability, [but] it doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the act,” he said.
Speaking exclusively with LifeSiteNews, the incoming chair for the U.S. Bishops’ pro-life committee said further that following the Church’s teaching on contraception is an attainable goal, and that people simply need good confessors to help them understand that fact.
“Good confessors can help and guide people through this, and, I think, help every individual realize that the moral good the moral law is attainable for all of us.”
LifeSiteNews Editor-in-chief and co-founder John-Henry Westen had asked Archbishop Naumann in the context of this year’s 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae whether it was, in fact, the case — as some bishops suggesting at the time of the document’s release — that Catholic couples may still use contraception if they feel in conscience that they were justified, and if not, whether this would make them ineligible then to receive Holy Communion.
Archbishop Naumann confirmed the Church’s teaching on contraception as a moral evil, as well as Church teaching that each and every conjugal act must be open to life.
“I think objectively contraception, and we see this in the Catechism, it is clear about that, that there is an intrinsic evil to use it,” the archbishop said, “because it cuts off one of the goals of marriage, which is an openness to life.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Abstinence is to contraception as silence is to lying.
Abstinence is to contraception as silence is to lying.
Even when sex is not effectively fertile, it signifies and supports fertility and the building of the family.
IOW, the unitive power of sex is an important help to the fertility of sex, as well as going beyond the natural good into the supernatural good: manifesting the love of Christ for the Church. A "Magnum Mysterium." Sacred.
And due to God's Intelligent Design of the female reproductive system, the woman is, as you know, only intermittently fertile. Continuous pregnancy, or limitless sequential pregnancy with no breaks in the sequence, is not part of the design.
A free will directred toward contraception is in conflict with Gopd’s Will, as expressed both is Biblical teaching and in Natural Law.
"A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing."
Boatbums: " God gave us brains to go along with our sexual desires and not all intercourse MUST be for procreation only."
Exactly! Exactly the understanding of NFP.
In that sense, NFP is birth control but it is not contraception.
::Facepalm:: That's not what it means at all.
It means originally the gestation period was very short. According to the midrash, Adam and Eve had sex twice on the day they were created leading, first to Cain and a twin sister, then to Abel and two "twin" sisters.
The punishment was pain in childbirth and the long gestation period we now know.
People really should learn to read the Bible before making such comments. The Bible--not a translation.
ONLY for the very specific purpose of prayer.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
It says nothing good about abstinence within a marriage, as a matter of fact, it goes against God's design for marriage and His command to husband and wife.
Nor does God allow for abstinence for the purposes of preventing conception. Birth control by any other name is still birth control.
You can dress it up as *natural* and give it the church stamp of approval, but it is still birth control.
So what?
And that's a matter of opinion.
Puritans are puritans and do not reflect all of evangelical or Protestant Christianity.
For that matter your comment is ludicrous considering the immorality that looseness so many of us former Catholics are charged with.
How many children did the Bishop create?
My wife and I had six, I did my part. I wasn’t goong to forgo sexual relations because birth control is evil.
Which condemns NFP.
Abstinence is to contraception as silence is to lying.
And people can lie with their silence. Like when they should speak up about the truth and remain silent to that everyone else thinks they agree.
You are contradicting yourself.
Because not all sex IS procreational.
Therefore you condemn couples where the woman had a hysterectomy or where the woman is past menopause.
I have seen enough on these kinds of threads to know how condemned sex for the pleasure of it is, and that condemns by default, all who have sex for the pleasure knowing that they can no longer have children.
There was a thread some time back about a Catholic couple, who agreed to live in a platonic, sexless marriage, and they were championed for it.
The punishment was pain in childbirth and the long gestation period we now know.
So y'all think sex was the first sin?
What fantasy you believe in!!!!!!
Sorry, but as much as I am pro-life, by which I mean anti-abortion, I am not pro-stupid.
I think it is right and smart, not evil, for parents to exercise some control over pro-creation and abstaining from intercourse is not the only moral choice to doing so. Such a course might have been fine 2,000 years ago when little but abstinence from intercourse was possible and successful for a couple seeking to have some control over the growth of their family. Condums and their use today is not “evil”.
I guess if two married people aren’t humping every second of every day to make more Catholic babies that’s evil too.
You are right as well, if you rejoice in your marital love to the glory of God, without barriers, blockades, sacrilege and sabotage against the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. To the Glory of God!
This should be obviuous to anyone who even reads the headlines. Look at the collapse of the faith in Ireland, with the intentional "popular" vote for the slaughter of Irish children before they see the light of day. What I would have you notice, is that one of the necessary (and apparently sufficient) causes for this was their acceptance of contraception: this paved the way for abortion.
In 1983, 66% of the Irish voters voted to put a highly protective pro-life provision, Amendment 8, into their Constitution. (Abortion was already illegal, but this mad it unconstituional as well>). Irish children were welcomed by love and protected by law.
In 1985, for the first time, condoms and spermicides were legally sold to people over 18 without a prescription.
In just one generation, the evil of this matured:
In 2018, the Irish mentality was exactly reversed against the children. As all aware FReepers know, the debauched Irish voted 66& to 34% TO REPEAL Amendment 8, and the floodgates have now been opened for the extermination of Irish children.
In every country in the world with the exception of Russia, it was contraception which so turned the minds of people against their own fertility --- and against natural female physiology, coming to see it as a national problem rather than as a loving treasure. Abortion became the "necessary backup" and inevitable outcome of the contraceptive mentality.
Textbook example of how contraceptive acceptance does not prevent abortion. It necessitates it.
1 Cor. 5:7
"Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
This temporary fasting, by consent, is the very way provided by God for husbands and wives to postpone or space their pregnancies, or even to avoid pregnancy entirely if there is a serious reason.
The Divine "design" is indeed Intelligent; and human couples, being intelligent, can have it down to a science.
Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds That's from Science Magazine, not a Catholic publication :o)
It proves the wisdom of practices recommended by Scripture: "There is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing." (Ecclesiastes 3:5)
God is a genius.
But it is not contraception, which acts to deliberately sabotage that design.
That year marked the first time in the history of Christian believers that a Christian denomination approved of contraception. That was the Anglicans at Lambeth in August, 1930.
(Actually, I think the Unitarians did this before 1930, but they don't, by their own declaration, count as Christians.)
OK, digging into my notes:
As the various Protestant denominations formed, their founders and leaders also condemned contraception in the strongest possible terms. John Calvin called the practice of contraception “condemned” and “doubly monstrous,” and saw abortion as “a crime incapable of expiation.” John Wesley said that contraception is “very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections.” Martin Luther called those who used contraceptives “logs,” “stock,” and “swine.”
Virtually every leader of every Protestant denomination condemned contraception explicitly and forcefully in his sermons and writings.
These included Anglicans Henry Alford, William Dodd, Joseph Hall, and Christopher Wordsworth; Calvinists Jacob Alting, Robert S. Candlish, and Cotton Mather; Evangelicals Keith Leroy Brooks and Thomas H. Leale; Huguenot Jean Mercier; Lutherans Johann Albrecht Bengel, Johannes Brunnemann, and Abraham Calovius; Methodists Adam Clarke and Richard Watson; Nonconformists Henry Ainsworth, Daniel Defoe, and John Gill; Presbyterians John Brown, Robert Dabney, and Melancthon W. Jacobus; and Puritans Richard Stock and John Trapp.
Neither did Jesus or St. Paul, both of whom were, like Naumann, celibate.
Celibates aren't supposed to have children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.