Contraception: Why It's Wrong

Catholic Culture ^ | 3/15/2007 | Dr. Jeff Mirus

[markomalley]

The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans—and most Catholics—simply do not understand. Let’s review what’s wrong with contraception.

The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn’t understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception, which apply to all sexual relations.

The Consequences of Contraception

I am using the word “extrinsic” to apply to the consequences of contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character. Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don’t determine the morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.

Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing it has two immediate and devastating consequences.

First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception

Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant. Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.

Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage; this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related, for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become “two in one flesh”, both through sexual relations and, literally, in their offspring.

It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt. These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose.

Related Issues

Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.

Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well. Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of contraception, and from its moral lies.

[klossg]

The Lamb of God, the first born male, unblemished lives the passover for our sins. And then we consume that Lamb and drink His blood.

God is so glorious? Or is it: God is so perverse? ... being consumed by us sinners. Glorious? The twist ... the paradox of Christianity ... it makes no sense. Accepting suffering! IT IS PERVERSE! YOU ARE RIGHT Mrs. VS and Scotswife.

[Scotswife]

I'm sorry to disappoint you Klossg.

[VeritatisSplendor]

One might interpret Saint Paul as saying the only valid reason to deprive each other is for prayer - a time of special focussing on God, and presumably by mutual consent.

It doesn't answer the questions: Is non-conceptive NFP moral? Is artificial contraception immoral?

Mrs VS

[klossg]

Thanks for clarifying that statement. It is providential that we are discussing St. Paul and NFP. Some of St. Paul's most basic teaching is based on the body, love, the Church and Marriage. This has everything to do with sexual intercourse, NFP and contraception.

St. Paul's teachings helped the Church to understand that Marriage is a primordial Sacrament. (Eph 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

St. Paul also teaches of the Church being one body: (Eph 4:4) "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." This is like a husband and wife that becomes one body, through Marriage. So we have Christ married to the Church. Coupled with the early bible teaching that husband and wife become one body, like Christ and the Church.

When Christ gave himself for His church, he did not hold back anything. He gave himself completely in body, blood, soul and divinity. Christ had no blood left to give at the end. Jn 19:34 "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." St. Paul calls husbands to do no less in Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." This speaks for not holding anything back. When a husband gives/offers himself to his wife, he should do it as Christ offered himself for His Church. This is the opposite of contraceptive sex.

Finally Paul defines the attributes of love. 1 Cor 13:4-8 "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." Please show me how contraceptive sex fits into this description especially since St. Paul includes: patience, not seeking its own interests, bearing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things and never failing.

You stated that: It doesn't answer the questions: Is non-conceptive NFP moral? Is artificial contraception immoral?

Reading St. Paul and the Gospels as a whole, in context, answers these questions. I have briefly shown this above and in my last post. Please show me how St. Paul, Christ or the Church teaches that:

1. Contraceptive sex is moral.
2. NFP based sex is not moral.

[klossg]

I'm sorry to disappoint you Klossg

You have not disappointed me! I am simply trying to clarify the teaching of Christ and the Church. Following those teachings is not as easy as seeing them or clarifying them. I am in no moral contest with you! I'd have no chance if that were the case. I'm afraid I'd disappoint you much sooner than you'd disappoint me. I fail all the time. Ask my wife, my family and friends.

On the topic of contraception, I try to remain impassioned and detached ... like that Pete Townshend song "Stop Hurting People". I like Pete and Chinese Eyes is one of my favorite albums. Sex, Marriage and Contraception is a deep sea and we all can barely swim. This is not about me or you or my personal opinion versus yours. I am sorry I may have implied that. I do not mean to be anything but sensitive in such a deep topic.

[VeritatisSplendor]

If you engage in non-conceptive NFP, then yes, you do have the opportunity to exercise patience. You would have even more opportunity to exercise patience if you never had intercourse. Many things are occasions to exercise patience; they are not necessarily good things.

As for "not seeking its own interests," I don't see that contraceptive FP is necessarily more selfish than non-conceptive NFP. God does not forbid us from seeking our own interests if those interests are not sinful. People who engage in NFP are seeking their interests - the desire to have a child or not have a child.

"Bearing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things and never failing." Good for any marriage - not necessarily precluded by contraception. I suspect that my great-grandparents, who had five children by the time my g.grandmother was 27 and no more after, used contraception - and they were devout Christians (Baptists) and were devoted to each other for almost 70 years.

I don't claim to find in Paul either that contraceptive NFP is moral or non-conceptive NFP is not moral. But I sure can't find the contrary which is what the Church teaches. The tradtional teaching of the Church matters; I am not a sola scriptura person. The sola scriptura denominations DON'T teach that contraception is wrong. Neither do the Orthodox.

You show that someone can read Paul in that way, sure. Not everyone does. But Paul could not have been preaching NFP - it did not exist; the scientific knowledge was not there.

Something doesn't become good just because it is a sacrifice. You need more justification than that.

Mrs VS

[klossg]

"Bearing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things and never failing." Good for any marriage - not necessarily precluded by contraception.

I am impressed with your ability not to see any difference between having contraceptive sex, versus abstaining from sex. I would like to buy your house and not give you money but sign the contract saying you agreed that not giving you the money is the same as giving you the money.

As far as love "bearing all things", I do not understand how you can say contraception bears all things. How does contraception not eliminate the fertile potential of a sexual act? Is fertile potential not a thing or a part of all things? Or from the other side with contraception, how can one bear the reality of one's spouses fertility, while shutting it down? Help me understand, because I want to see it so I can agree with you. NFP, properly used, does not thwart fertility in any sexual act. NFP bears fertility and the spouse's desire not to get pregnant by abstaining. In NFP's case, I see that love bears it all, nothing is rejected. Both fertility and the spouses' birth control goals are respected with NFP.

I don't see that contraceptive FP is necessarily more selfish than non-conceptive NFP.

How so? Using NFP, the couple abstains. There is no sexual intercourse. Using Contraceptives, the couple has sexual intercourse. Help me understand how engaging in sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy is as selfless as not engaging in sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy.

God does not forbid us from seeking our own interests if those interests are not sinful.

I agree with this completely. In fact God does not forbid us from seeking our own interests even if those interests are sinful. God has given us complete freedom. This just proves that we are created in God's image with a free will.

People who engage in NFP are seeking their interests - the desire to have a child or not have a child.

I agree. How could I not agree? The ends are the same. Both are forms of birth control! Any couple that uses birth control is seeking their own long term interests and there is nothing inherently wrong in that unless you sin in doing so. We agree on this. Right?

This is not the point and you know it. Right? I know that you know the means to the same end are different and that is the point. Right? The question as to why you continue to hop over the fact that engaging in contraceptive sexual intercourse is not the same as abstaining from sexual intercourse is the central to the issue. Correct? Why do you ignore the difference in the means? Or do you think I am not able to differentiate? Or do you not differentiate and see them as the same? Do you think I do not understand the subtleties or do you not understand the difference? Do you feel I am I incapable of discussing sex as an adult, with its pleasures and consequences?

You show that someone can read Paul in that way, sure.

Is it not clear with Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body that the Christ teaches this interpretation through the Church? Might the answer to your uncertainty be contained in this and other teachings of God? I do not think I am way out there on this. It is not hard to see a teaching on love as connected to the goodness of sexuality. As you seem to indicate, it is in the realm of reason that Paul is teaching how our sexuality/love should be respected with NFP, rather than bent by contraception.

The sola scriptura denominations DON'T teach that contraception is wrong. Neither do the Orthodox.

They once did. Before 1930 all Christian churches taught that contraception was wrong. It was unanimous. A mainly Protestant America passed the Comstock laws against contraception. (I wouldn't recommend or support that, but that was the reality). Regardless, what does any of this mean to us Roman Catholics?

[VeritatisSplendor]

In NFP's case, I see that love bears it all, nothing is rejected. Both fertility and the spouses' birth control goals are respected with NFP.

I see your point that in each act this is true.

In the totality, the fertile time and fertility is avoided, sacrificed, rejected - not sure which word is most appropriate. It doesn't make sense to me that the totality is not more important than the individual act - that each act is not weighed as part of the whole. Is the couple, or have they been open to children? Would they do their best by any child conceived, no matter what their plans? What are their reasons for desiring or not desiring conception? What are the reasons for choosing the family planning method they use?

I'm not confusing ends and means. I'm saying as a mean, barrier contraception isn't self-evidently sinful. A barrier doesn't kill a baby. It can stop sperm, but it can't stop God. It can certainly be misused - but from my observations of many couples it does not poison a marriage and it does not poison a relationship with God.

When I am comparing contraceptive sex vs. non-conceptive NFP sex, I am considering it it light of the END - to have sex and not conceive.

Mirus isn't convincing; as quoted, Euteneuer isn't convincing. Anyone one who says "Statistically" when talking about moral issues had better be a utilitarian. A Church moralist had better NOT be a utilitarian. They're just throwing words - you tried a lot harder. But I don't think we're getting any further now.

When NFP works as well as it can, a couple is fortunate indeed. If you count yourself so blessed, say a prayer for those who are struggling.

Mrs VS

PS God certainly does forbid many of our own interests - the Ten Commandments come to mind. What he doesn't often do is prevent us.

[klossg]

I see your point that in each act this is true.

In each NFP act, you see that love bears both the spouse's fertility and the spouse's birth control goals. It is clear to me as well.

Then you seem to undo this acknowledgment when you refocus your vision from each act to what you call the totality. "It doesn't make sense to me that the totality is not more important than the individual act - that each act is not weighed as part of the whole." It seems to me you refocus and that is okay, but you imply we can just forget the single act, as if each sexual intercourse event is not important to the couple or has any importance or bearing. Is that what you are saying?

I know that we are more than just a series of actions, so I can agree with this statement to a point. A couple is more than just one sexual act! But, that doesn't make each act unimportant or un-influential. Right? Which act or acts would we be able to remove and still arrive at the same point today? Are some acts practice? Are some acts not needed? Is it five good acts that make up the totality? Or is it 30? Or every 15th act? Though the whole relationship of the couple is important, each act has an impact as well. I propose that each act is important and that as you say, they can be weighted by the "totality" but the totality does not make the individual act meaningless.

You seem to imply that an act or relationship is greatly influenced by if the couple has been open to children, when you say "Is the couple, or have they been open to children"

By this are you implying that todays acts should be weighed on past intentions? Is this like saying a student who has not cheated up until his senior year, should be not be seen as cheater because he has three years where he did not cheat? Or conversely, is it like saying a student who has cheated up until his senior year, should not be seen as a fair student his senior year because he had three years where he did cheat?

Would they do their best by any child conceived, no matter what their plans?

Is the intention of statement to say that they would not abort the baby, if the birth control failed - thus saying they are open to any life that is conceived? If so, then I agree that the morality of each act would be influenced by this. And this would influence an NFP act or a contraceptive act. Agree?

What are their reasons for desiring or not desiring conception?

This is regardless of the means of birth control used. NFP or contraception ... regardless of the means. Either means would have no impact on the morality of the reasons. This is extraneous to our discussion, right?

What are the reasons for choosing the family planning method they use?

This is huge. There are many forces in today's society that influence this. In the end, only God can understand and come to grips with all this. This is not to say that therefore, we should not work to influence the formation of this decision. Each person has a different level of awareness of the options available to them for birth control. For our discussion, since we both seem to have an understanding of birth control options available, we should be in agreement as to what the realities are in birth control. Then this issue becomes mute for the advancement of this topic. Right?

TO this end: Do we agree that the pill and IUDs are potential abortificients and should not be used? Do we agree that condoms allow for contraceptive sex during the fertile time of a woman's cycle? Do we agree that NFP's effectiveness is comparable or better than condoms? Do we agree that fertility is purposefully thwarted by the use of a condom during the fertile time, versus NFP's abstinence?

I'm saying as a mean, barrier contraception isn't self-evidently sinful.

Regardless of its sinfulness, have you not agreed that barrier contraception acts against the virtue of love, in that love bears all things? Barrier contraception rejects a spouse's fertility, thusly not bearing all. Then, I have to ask why skate away from love or close to the edge, when abstinence/NFP would respect the spouse's fertility?

It can certainly be misused - but from my observations of many couples it does not poison a marriage and it does not poison a relationship with God.

I don't claim that contraception always poisons a marriage or a always poisons one's relationship with God. And as far as your observations or my observations: we are both limited to what people will share. Most people who have marriage problems do not talk about it. And when they do, they don't always discuss the real issues behind their problems. They may never admit them. It is human nature. And in our culture negative sexual issues are hardly talked about - instead we use sex openly to sell products. I know I'd have a hard time talking about what may have caused problems if I were to divorce. On top of this, people may not even realize that contraception can be a problem. It is so accepted and part and parcel of our society. Right?

But, something that stops love and makes it impossible to bear all things, confuses the marriage relationship. There are statistics available that tie the mass acceptance/use of contraception to higher divorce rates and a higher rate of out of wedlock births. (I know more than just contraception has changed in the same time frame, but do the other things cause all of the higher rates?)

When NFP works as well as it can, a couple is fortunate indeed. If you count yourself so blessed, say a prayer for those who are struggling.

We have had no "surprises". But that doesn't mean it has been like butter. Is anything? There have been times when we have disagreed and times we have failed. There have been times when the method reauired more than two weeks of abstinence. I am not sitting high and mighty or saying that using NFP is easy and trouble free. Just that it is an alternative to contraception and is comparable in effectiveness. And that NFP does not get in the way of the love of one's spouse, when a couple chooses to engage in sexual intercourse.

As far as saying a prayer, since you brought it up, we pray for all people who use NFP, especially those we have taught. It is just part of CCL's training. They train the heck out of you when you are going to teach the CCL method. And for good reason.

[iranger]

"I'm not confusing ends and means. I'm saying as a mean, barrier contraception isn't self-evidently sinful."

I think this is the crux of the matter. In my opinion, VS, you've done a better job clarifying your arguments on why it is not self ivident than those who claim otherwise. This argument always seems to end in stalemate at which time the final gauntlet is then thrown out stating that the Church has declared any and all ABC (and for that matter any sex that doesn't end with unimpeded intercourse) is sinful and thus it must be so. Without a logical argument to back it up, such a declaration is very hard to swallow for anyone raised in the American tradition of intellectual liberty.

[klossg]

Without a logical argument to back it up, such a declaration is very hard to swallow for anyone raised in the American tradition of intellectual liberty.

I respect your opinion iranger but it is just an opinion and ... I have to echo: "Without a logical argument to back it up, such a declaration is very hard to swallow for anyone raised in the American tradition of intellectual liberty."

Don't you think it is a good idea to just wait for a reply from VS or someone who will provide a "logical argument"?

Self evident is the fact that VS agreed that NFP does not impede love in any sexual act. No such "logical argument" or statement has been made in regards to barrier contraception. We've been pretty open and honest through out this discussion. There is no reason not to continue.

[VeritatisSplendor]

Ok, klossg, I was about to drop out of this, but you're misunderstanding me. When I agree that love rejects nothing potential or actual in one given act of non-conceptive NFP there is a lot I am NOT agreeing to.

I do not agree that NFP does not impede love. If there is strong reason to think that NFP may not work and strong reason not to conceive; if there is strong reason to fear conception, so that the odds of NFP aren't good enough; if the infertile time corresponds with difficulties in response and desire; if waiting leads to frustration that reaches harmful levels - THEN NFP IMPEDES LOVE.

THAT IS MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHURCH'S PROHIBITION. NFP IMPEDES LOVE. No couple who's struggling, whose love is impeded, needs to hear about monthly honeymoons or read Fr. Euteneuer going on about "health and happiness" - does he tell a hungry beggar, "Gosh, they're having a feast at the Hilton?"

Maybe no circumstances could impede perfect love - marital love so great that the sexual aspect was just pure lagniappe.

Love is still love even when it isn't perfect. When my son is endlessly rude, unhelpful and ungrateful and throws pimples on top of that, it impedes my love. If I had perfect love, it wouldn't. But I still love him, even though my love isn't perfect. And he loves me.

As means, treatments that cause temporary or permanent sterility are not intrinsically evil. A woman might use birth control pills in the treatment of endometriosis or polycystic ovaries, perhaps with the hope of eventually becoming pregnant after treatment - or simply for the sake of her health. She might have her uterus removed if she has bad fibroids, or her ovaries removed if she is at high risk for ovarian cancer.

You could arguably use condoms for health protection - NFP for non-conception AND condoms against unpredictable herpes flare-ups.

As an end, the goal of having intercourse but not conceiving is acceptable to the defenders of NFP. For the duration of the time that they practice non-conceptive NFP a couple does reject fertility - the likelihood of conception.

So you have means that are acceptable, at least for some ends. You have an end that is acceptable. Put the means and ends together - are they proportionate? In many cases, certainly. Then you get into direct and indirect causes and consequences - what is willed and what is merely forseen.

What is willed? I WANT to be fertile - I want to carry a baby from conception through healthy birth. It doesn't look like I can have that. I don't want to come close to dying again, don't want to lose a beloved baby again when she's too little to live, don't want to see my children terrified of losing their mother and losing another sister or brother and asking why God didn't answer their prayers.

Anyone who wants to argue with me about what is willed can go...

I'm done here. No more.

Mrs VS

[Netizen]

If the purpose of sexual relations within marriage is to be both unitive and procreative, how is it intrinsically moral to purposely and knowingly avoid a time when the act could bear fruit? I mean, if you are engaging in the act and it doesn't happen, that's one thing, but to purposely plan to avoid fruit-bearing times seems contradictory, not to mention does not seem to give the freedom the author is wishing on married couples.

Avoiding times when one might be fruitful would also have the same result as using a contraceptive.

Waht of those couples where one of them is sterile? Does it then make it sinful to engage in sex sin they know reproduction won't be happening?

[klossg]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do not mean to hurt anyone and I am sorry that I have. I have no idea what it is like to go through what you are going through and only can offer my prayers. May Christ's peace surround you and assist you through your struggles.

klossg

[iranger]

"I respect your opinion iranger but it is just an opinion and ... I have to echo: "Without a logical argument to back it up, such a declaration is very hard to swallow for anyone raised in the American tradition of intellectual liberty.""

That goes without saying. What else is there in discourse?

"Don't you think it is a good idea to just wait for a reply from VS or someone who will provide a "logical argument"?"

OK, I read this 8 times and I still don't understand what are you really asking.

"Self evident is the fact that VS agreed that NFP does not impede love in any sexual act. No such "logical argument" or statement has been made in regards to barrier contraception. We've been pretty open and honest through out this discussion. There is no reason not to continue."

Well I'm not going to put words into VS's mouth, but I think the point she has succeeding in arguing (atleast to me) is that no convincing argument has been offered that shows barrier contraception is implicitly sinful. I also don't think anyone has impugned anyone as not being honest if that is what you are implying in your last two sentences.

[Scotswife]

"THAT IS MY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHURCH'S PROHIBITION. NFP IMPEDES LOVE."

yes. I agree with this.
I see the arguments, too, as cerebral exercises that just don't apply to real life.

In reality, most men get very frustrated if they only have sex one week out of four. Combine that with the fact that their wife is having sex during the week that is LEAST enjoyable to her.

In reality, women get frustrated with the idea that they may NEVER AGAIN have sex with their husband during the time it is pleasurable.

In reality, it gets to be very tiring to be the one to constantly say, night after night "no - tonight is not a good night either."

The notion that is supposed to be building some sort of unitive bond between us is failing to register with me.

Granted...I'm most likely not mature enough spiritually to grasp what is intended - but I do think we are reacting as normal people would to circumstances that are baffling to us.

I've been told I'm becoming a "relativist" because I'm arriving at the idea that damaging the marriage with celibacy would be worse than using contraception.

I truly do wonder how many couples become alienated from each other when they try to live with such long periods of abstinence.

[dbz77]

Where does the word “contraception” appear in the Holy Bible?

The Bible mentions theft, adultery, idolatry, and murder. Yet, it omits contraception.

[dbz77]

Who determined that we should regulate how many children God may bless us with?

We do.

We have the might, so we have the right.

[dbz77]

If the stated goals of sexual relations among married couples are two-fold, procreative and unitive, how can you KNOWINGLY bypass the procreative goal?

We have the might, so we have the right.

[dbz77]

Before 1930, the belief that it was objectively gravely evil to use artificial contraception was widely held.

Before 1930, the belief that white people were superior to black people was widely held.