alek0

Can someone explain to me why they consider contraception wrong? And NFP only OK for spacing out children not entirely preventing pregnancy?

Someone once tried to explain to me that they are supposed to trust in god's wisdom and not rebel against him by preventing pregnancy. Marriage should always be open to possibility of procreation and that sort of nonsense. What I don't undertsand is the following:

1) If there is a god and if he is omnipotent and wants you to get pregnant, you will get pregnant no matter if you are measuring your temperature and examining cervical moucus or you are on the pill and using condoms and your partner had a vasectomy. If he could make Sarah get pregnant, nothing is impossible to him, right?

2) Concerning leaving matters to god's will and rebeling against god, why is then life support, resusciation, etc. OK? God wants you to die, aren't you rebeling against his will by doing everything you can to prolong your life (and why are you doing that anyway, if heaven is such a nice place).

3) What about the woman? Popping out all those kids one after another can't be exactly great for her health. What is this loving god doing about all the pregnancy and childbirth complications?

Gemma Therese

This might be helpful:

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06hv.htm

Gemma Therese

Amie

Hi alek0
I'll try my best dearheart...
At one point in theology I actually wrote a paper on this...

Basically according to the Humanae Vitae of the Catholic Church anything that comes in the way of natural consequences of sex such as sterilization, condoms, spermicides, the pill or any other method of artificial contraception are considered wrong.

The Catholic church believes contraception is wrong because it violates God's "natural law" being the purpose of sex is to procreate. Although the Catholic church still adheres to this at one time all protestant denominations agreed that this practice was in fact a sin and in violation of God's natural laws. At one point the Anglican church allowed it only for specific circumstances and then they allowed it for whomever and after that the other denominations followed so the Catholic church was left alone in maintaining this position on contraception...

The bible really does not deal too much on contraception, however there are examples where the bible mentions forms of contraception and condemns both. One was Genesis 38:8-10 about Onan and for that he received death as a violation of natural law...
and Deuteronomy 23:1 mentions sterilization.

right

yes then it would seem a violation of "natural law" as well but I think it is looked at differently as one is a preservation of life, the other a way to hinder or prevent potential life...

Most catholics I know don't adhere to the church stance. I personally think its a personal choice. Some people feel guilty if they go against the catechisms of the church even if it is a recommendation of the doctor.

It was then that I lost my greatest amount of faith after losing twins. I wish I had all the answers...

take care~
Amie

Infinity Lover

I remember this line by the late great Wim Kan (a legendary Dutch political comedian)

If you don't practice the sport, don't concern yourself with the rules!

I always though that was kinda funny.

agapeo

True, but then every sport has it's coaches.

Btw -- good post Amie!

Infinity Lover

If I didn't want her for myself, I'd want her to become pope.

alek0

Amie, few questions:

Deuteronomy 23:1
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

What does this have to do with contraception? Granted, includes sterilization, but it is more broad than that. So, removal of testicles because of testicular cancer is unacceptable to Christians? What about hysterectomies? What about cancer treatments which cause infertility?

As for Onan, was the act of masturbation wrong in general, or was it wrong that he disobeyed very specific order to make his brother's wife (brother was, btw, killed by god) pregnant. It is also interesting to read what happened later with the wife - she got impregnated by her father in law 38:18, who, when he discoevered it, said she was more righteous than him (38:26).
Does this sound to you as a good basis for deciding what is and what isn't moral?

Amos

If there is a God the above sounds like he is not present in modern day America where fertility clinics outnumber abortion clinics despite their freedom to use contraception.

Amie

that was the method of male sterilization of that day so I gave that as an example in regards to contraception.

I was referring to that as contraception. I do not believe any treatments are wrong for cancer.

No. I do not believe people need scripture to be moral nor do I believe it is a necessity as a basis.

alek0

Then does Deuteronomy 23:1 apply to cancer patients? Are those who lost testicles due to testicular cancer allowed to enter the congregation fo the lord?

Or are people picking and choosing what is applicable from the bible and what isn't? And if so, how do you decide? There are so many possible interpretations, how to know what is true if you don't take it literally? And you can't take it literally since it is full of contradictions and errors. Why would then people make their decisions based on what bible says?