Why Contraception Will Never Be Permitted
I know, I know…another contraception post. Well, someone asked again.
People opine a lot that someday there can be a development of doctrine that will permit the practice of contraception, but they don’t understand the reason why contraception can never be permitted. Catholic moral laws are most fundamentally rooted in love. That is probably the single most misunderstood part of moral theology. It’s about love.
And this is not loving.
A marriage, man and woman united as one, is the most 1) fundamental and 2) intimate social unit. Scripture describes how the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, conceives the Word and begets the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, gives all of Himself to the Son except to be Father. Did you catch the eternal fecundity in God, conceiving and begetting?
From the Father and the Son together – as one substance – breaths forth the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, which is Love Himself. In God there is perfect unity, perfect giving, perfect receiving, perfect love between three Persons, so much so that they are One God.
Families are a reflection of that perfection…
[button link="http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/04/24/why-contraception-will-never-be-permitted/" type="big" color="red"] Read the rest at Catholic Sistas here![/button]
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Mystics have said, “All souls are female to God.” The Holy Spirit enters into us, thus we are all, in that way, female to God. Why on earth (or why in heaven) would anyone want to contracept the highest and best good? Love Himself describes love, “To will the highest and best good for the sake of the beloved.”
Lovely, but ultimately it leads to this: whatever doesn’t evolve, goes extinct. It’s a natural law. Everything needs to evolve, to change, or it will cease to be.
The Catholic church is a good example of that. After refusing to change for nearly 2000 years and even using force and violence to supress all opposing views the Catholic church is losing influence and power fast. As said before, in Europe the power of the Catholic church is becoming negligable and even in Latin America the church is losing influence. In North-America Catholicism has always been the religion of a minority. The lack of change and the will to change is, at least in part, responsible for that. The Catholic church refuses to acknowledge times have changed and the world changed with it. If a woman is forbidden to use contraceptives in this day and age it’s more likely she will shrug and do it anyway or turn her back to the church completely than begging her priest for forgiveness. And the church doesn’t understand why, all of a sudden, people don’t look at them for guidance anymore or how people realize the church doesn’t hold the monopoly on the truth. So the Catholic church continues to do her thing like it did for hundreds of years while at the same time that very aspect causes it’s demise.
Unless the Catholic church starts to really modernize things, like getting rid of the celibacy, allowing women to become priest and changing their views on issues like contraceptives and homosexuality the Catholic church is on the same road as once the dinosaurs: last stop, Extinction!
Edward, I can’t resist making explicit a subtle inference that follows necessarily from your mighty principle.
Whatever doesn’t procreate, goes extinct.
I think we’ve found some common ground. Come on over to Rome. Please?
Jeff
“Come on over to Rome. Please?”
That’s the second time you make a reference to Rome. You do know the Roman Empire split when emporer Constantine allowed Christianity to take hold there, don’t you? And you also know the Western-Roman Empire ceased to excist with 100 years after that fact while the Eastern-Roman Empire remained for another 1000 years?
And, since there is now a “simple” legal procedure called “adoption” extinction is something of the past for those that not procreate. Still, I was talking about a church, it’s dogma and where it’s leading. Something every historian will back up, based on the facts now available to us. If the Catholic church refuses to modernize, i.e. keeps on the same path it is on right now, it will cease to exist. One of the troubles with having a global organisation is it needs to be paid for. That’s going to be difficult before long with the declining number of Catholics.
Edward, our evolutionary principles, as you know, are about species, not individuals.
Right? So your reference to “those that [do] not procreate” is about individuals. I have nothing to say about individuals. I am a scientist. I speak of species, as I thought you were doing. Right?
A species that does not procreate will become extinct.
I don’t think that’s unscientific but I want to make sure you agree, if not, maybe I’m misinterpreting your intention, which I definitely don’t want to do.
But if you agree that a species that does not procreate will become extinct, then there are many ways to argue that contraception is wrong.
Catholics would invoke the natural law which says that a law of a species should provide principles for individual behavior. E.g., the human species by nature is rational, therefore a particular man or woman ought to act rationally. Similarly, the human species by nature procreates, therefore a particular man or woman ought to procreate, ceteris paribus. Yes, I couldn’t help adding the Latin phrase in praise of the classical Roman empire.
Ceteris paribus is a philosopher’s phrase (and therefore in my minds eye I am pronouncing it using classical Latin. I wanted to impress you that I prefer classical Latin pronunciations to “church Latin”). Anyway, the phrase means “all other things (as in et cetera) being equal (as in parity).” So of course, the moral principle that men and women ought to procreate isn’t a top down injunction from the general principle to the here-and-now-for-this-particular-person. It means, all other things being equal, a person ought to procreate.
You would be right if you said that some Catholics fail to emphasize this fact sufficiently. The Church does make room for a well formed conscience however. Our individual judgments must consider both the principle (which we are not free to disagree with) and the particular circumstances (which we have an obligation to take into account).
All of this is pretty mainstream Catholic moral philosophy, thanks to our beloved St. Thomas Aquinas. I think it’s very reasonable.
Jeff,
“But if you agree that a species that does not procreate will become extinct, then there are many ways to argue that contraception is wrong.”
Nicely put while taking things entirely out of context, as usual.
I think you and I can both agree so far the human race hasn’t stopped procreating. In fact, I wish the human race would for a couple of years so we could end the growth of it’s population, especially in areas of the world where a large family is the last thing they need. So far the human race has grown in numbers from 5 billion in the 1950′s to 7 billion in 2011. So I doubt there’s any danger of the human race getting extinct anytime soon, don’t you agree?
Furthermore, most people who use contraceptives have no intention not to procreate, just not to procreate right now. You said it yourself: humanity is a rational species so it’s only a natural consequence humanity will take control over their own biological processes, like the decision when the procreate. After all, most women aren’t like Stacy, who agree to become stay-at-home mom’s, especially not those with higher education and even their Phd. Which is one of the things I meant when I spoke of modern times.
“A species that does not procreate will become extinct.”
Not necessarily. Although right now banned from use the technology exists to eliminate the need to biological procreation entirely. I mean artificial wombs in which a couple can conceive in combination with IVF procedures, for example.
“Ceteris paribus is a philosopher’s phrase (and therefore in my minds eye I am pronouncing it using classical Latin. I wanted to impress you that I prefer classical Latin pronunciations to “church Latin”).”
Thanks, but I don’t care either way. I don’t read Latin so I’ll have to take your word for it anyway.
“All of this is pretty mainstream Catholic moral philosophy, thanks to our beloved St. Thomas Aquinas. I think it’s very reasonable.”
As a devoted Catholic I expect you to find it very reasonable. But for those who are either in doubt to begin with, those who are only Catholic because they were raised that way or those who are somehow forced into being Catholic it’s a good reason to abandon Catholicism. Another problem for the Catholic church is the ease with which people can now access information. 50 years ago a scientific discovery would remain within the scientific community for a long time before it made it’s way to the general public. Nowadays the general public knows things the same time the former elite knew them, making it difficult for the Catholic church to respond to new information. The Catholic church no longer has time on it’s side, making it clearer to people all over the world the Catholic church no longer holds the monopoly on the truth, even though the Catholic church desperately tries to make everyone believe it does. And, let’s face it, when it comes to the truth the Catholic church has a pretty lousy record.
So, please respond to my statement the Catholic church is dying because it has no idea how to cope with modern time, new ideas and new technologies. As more and more people are leaving the church less and less money comes in. And we both know prayers and convictions don’t pay the bills; money does.
Edward,
“So, please respond to my statement the Catholic church is dying because it has no idea how to cope with modern time, new ideas and new technologies.”
You haven’t proven that. I’m studying the Modernist movement in Europe that heightened a hundred years ago. You are saying nothing new. However, the fact is, they were wrong about the Church dying. It hasn’t. It is still growing.
Remember, the Netherlands may look bleak, but that is not the whole world. Florida has a bigger population.
Stacy,
“I’m studying the Modernist movement in Europe that heightened a hundred years ago. You are saying nothing new. However, the fact is, they were wrong about the Church dying. It hasn’t. It is still growing.”
Not in Europe, it isn’t. And, as we established some time ago, also in Latin America, Africa and Asia Catholicism is losing influence. So please explain why you think the Catholic church is still growing?
“the Netherlands may look bleak, but that is not the whole world. Florida has a bigger population.”
Probably true. It also has a better climate (if you don’t take huricanes into account) and a far larger debt than the Netherlands has. In fact, isn’t Florida one of the poorest states in the US? Does it happen to have a lot of Catholics?
Edward,
http://www.zenit.org/article-28425?l=english
Where do you get your numbers?
“In fact, isn’t Florida one of the poorest states in the US?”
No.
“a far larger debt than the Netherlands has”
The Netherland’s debt to GDP ratio is about three and a half times that of Florida’s.
Stacy,
“http://www.zenit.org/article-28425?l=english”
Do you understand why I don’t think numbers reported by the Vatican are trustworthy or do I have to spell it for you? As far as I’m concerned those numbers aren’t worth the virtual “paper” they were “printed” on.