well...it's considered to be a mortal sin, and a mortal sin will send you to hell.Idolatry is also a mortal sin.
Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by 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. |
well...it's considered to be a mortal sin, and a mortal sin will send you to hell.Idolatry is also a mortal sin.
And so is detraction when it is based on willful ignorance.
Speaking of ignorance, do we suppose that dbz77 is familiar with the story of Onan?
Why does dbz77 think that Onan was struck down?
Most human beings have a disconnect from what Christ teaches: i.e. love thy neighbor as thyself, love God with all thy heart ... blessed are the meek ... give thy possessions to the poor and follow me ... love thy enemy ... pray for those who persecute thee ...What did Christ Himself say about contraception, either during the Incarnation or when He gave the law to Moses at Sinai? (I am aware that Christian theology teaches that Jesus is God.)
For refusing to impregnate his brother’s childless widow.
What was the Pope doing in that picture?
But there’s more to the story, isn’t there?
It wasn’t just that he wouldn’t sleep with her, was it?
This isn’t too hard; it was at one time foundational to all Judaeo-Christian denominations’ attitude to sexual morality.
It looks to me like he’s crowning a statue of Mary, a common enough ritual honouring Mary in May.
Or it could be the time he placed the assassin’s bullet removed from his body into the crown of the statue of Our Lady of Fatima in Fatima.
What’s your point?
Do you usually go around resurrecting two year old threads?
sitetest
Welcome to FR
There are a lot of words that don't appear in the Bible. There are a lot of technologies that didn't exist at that time, to include condoms, iuds, birth control pills, and other methods. So if they aren't mentioned, it was likely that they weren't a reality at that time. However, two methods that did exist were discussed: coitus interruptus (Gen 38:9-10) and sterliziation/neutering (Deut 23:1).
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "the Bible says this; therefore..." Rather, I'm saying that what we believe is supported by the Scriptures.
And, by the way, this has always been the consistent teaching of the Church. Please note the following article which shows early Christian writings on the subject.
In fact, the belief that contraception is OK is a novel subject, having been accepted for the first time by the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion, which said in Article 15:
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
The above was the first statement by ANY (repeat ANY) Christian denomination that did not out-and-out condemn the use of artificial contraception. By the way, please note the following: the first was from 1908 Lambeth and the second was from 1958 Lambeth (I show this to show the grave moral decline that happened within the mere period of 50 years).
The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
For a couple of good articles on this, take a look at this (from the BBC) or this (An PDF article entitled the Bible and Birth Control from the UK organization "United for Life")
Bottom line is if you want your beliefs to line up with modern secular progressives and the modern, liberal, degenerate (so called) Christian community, then by all means support birth control. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to have your beliefs line up with historical Christianity from the time of the apostles, then you may wish to take a little re-look at this question.
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.