Why does the catholic church consider birth control immoral?

[Mr Skeptic]

But here is the problem. Believers and non-believers are using two different sets of rules in their arguments. You are using logic, science, etc. and trying to refute what the church believes. But they believe God said it. From their perspective God easily trumps logic and science.

 

So, just like a believer will never be able to use the bible to convince you that evolution is false (because you have logic and science on your side), you will never be able to convince them the bible (and the beliefs it inspires) is false (because they have God on their side).

 

So while I love watching and learning from the arguments given when believers and non-believers square off, I know no one is actually going to win. It's like one side thinking they won because they scored the most goals, while the other side thinks they won because they ran the fastest.

 

Oh, but my argument is from the Bible... The Bible mentions both the bonding and pleasure aspects of sex (becoming one flesh, for example). I'm using the Bible to argue against the Pope, who is just a fallible human and not God.

[zapatos]

Oh, but my argument is from the Bible... The Bible mentions both the bonding and pleasure aspects of sex (becoming one flesh, for example). I'm using the Bible to argue against the Pope, who is just a fallible human and not God.

Ah, ok. So the pope is picking and choosing what to take a stand on based on his interpretation? Like 'do not mess with procreation' is more important than 'do not mess with bonding'. So that is just his opinion, and may change with the next Pope. Good point.

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, ok. So the pope is picking and choosing what to take a stand on based on his interpretation? Like 'do not mess with procreation' is more important than 'do not mess with bonding'. So that is just his opinion, and may change with the next Pope. Good point.

 

Not even that; the Catholics are also advocating birth control via abstinence. They are messing with procreation and bonding, whereas using other forms of birth control only interferes with procreation but not with bonding.

[Moontanman]

Not even that; the Catholics are also advocating birth control via abstinence. They are messing with procreation and bonding, whereas using other forms of birth control only interferes with procreation but not with bonding.

 

 

Great point, i'd pos rep you if i could...

[Edtharan]

Imo, what marriage does is express an intent never to wash your hands of another person . . . in sickness and health, for richer and poorer, etc. So when you have sex with someone without marrying them, you are basically saying, "I don't care what happens to you in life after we finish having sex." As long as that person amuses you, you keep them around and when they become uninteresting you discard them. Polygamy is pretty much forgotten and trivialized in western culture at this point, but that is actually an even greater extension of the ethic of not discarding sex partners after the act.

However, the church also prohibits married couples from using birth control, so if it was just about birth control leading to discarding sex parteners, then they should have no problem with birth control with married couples.

 

So all these arguments about how the birth control prohibition is about the relationships we have with partners does not match up. It has to be more than just how we treat sex partners.

 

I also don't agree with your conclusion that casual sex means: "I don't care what happens to you in life after we finish having sex."

 

If a person thought this way, then it would not just be the act of sex that made them treat other people like this, and if someone didn't have this attitude, then having casual sex with somenone won't turn them into the other type of person. In other words, the act of casual sex has no influence on how a person sees the other person and the attitude they have to the relationship after it.

[Severian]

Why does the catholic church consider birth control to be a sin even with married couples? This policy not only results in unwanted children that cannot be cared for and are a burden on society it also results in Aids being spread due to the anti condom fetish of the church.

 

It is not the act of not wearing a condom that results in unwanted pregnancies and the spreading of aids. It is having sex that causes these. I think that is the church's point. If people led more moral lives, there wouldn't be any issue, so the church doesn't want to encourage actions which take away the incentive to live morally.

 

I disagree with this view only because I want people to be motivated to act morally by their love of God, not out ot of fear for their lives. However, I have never ever used birth control, and I am sure I never will.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Severian

[Moontanman]

It is not the act of not wearing a condom that results in unwanted pregnancies and the spreading of aids. It is having sex that causes these. I think that is the church's point. If people led more moral lives, there wouldn't be any issue, so the church doesn't want to encourage actions which take away the incentive to live morally.

 

I disagree with this view only because I want people to be motivated to act morally by their love of God, not out ot of fear for their lives. However, I have never ever used birth control, and I am sure I never will.

 

 

I understand that the church is against sex outside of marriage, but why is birth control inside marriage wrong as well? I can't imagine being limited to abstinence in my marriage to avoid pregnancy, talk about a bummer, sex only a few days a month at most and still the danger of pregnancy? That would not just suck personally but it would harm the bonding and emotional comfort sex brings between couples...

[Severian]

I understand that the church is against sex outside of marriage, but why is birth control inside marriage wrong as well? I can't imagine being limited to abstinence in my marriage to avoid pregnancy, talk about a bummer, sex only a few days a month at most and still the danger of pregnancy? That would not just suck personally but it would harm the bonding and emotional comfort sex brings between couples...

 

Maybe you place unnatural importance on sex. If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without sex, don't you think there is something wrong?

[zapatos]

I understand that the church is against sex outside of marriage, but why is birth control inside marriage wrong as well? I can't imagine being limited to abstinence in my marriage to avoid pregnancy, talk about a bummer, sex only a few days a month at most and still the danger of pregnancy? That would not just suck personally but it would harm the bonding and emotional comfort sex brings between couples...

Moon, we already discussed in this thread why birth control inside marriage is wrong in the Catholic church. And if you are not Catholic, then this doesn't apply to you. I don't understand why it bothers you if others choose to join this group and live by its rules (or even ignore its rules).

 

I don't like the rule of having to wear a helmet, but since I am not on a football team it really doesn't apply to me. And when you eliminate the days taken by menstruation and ovulation you should still have more than "only a few days a month at most" to have sex.

[Moontanman]

Maybe you place unnatural importance on sex. If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without sex, don't you think there is something wrong?

 

 

You're right, i have a 34 year marriage with two grown children, i must put far too much importance on sex. Why should I have to do with out sex? Why should my wife and I limit sex due to not wanting a child at that point in time? The church even frowns on masturbation, the sexual repression of the church serves no purpose other than controlling the faithful in an arbitrary fashion... So far no one has presented any reason fro the Prohibition of birth control inside of marriage that makes any sense at all.

[zapatos]

So far no one has presented any reason fro the Prohibition of birth control inside of marriage that makes any sense at all.

No one has presented any reason for the Prohibition of birth control inside of marriage that makes any sense at all to you.

 

But you were presented with the reason that the church gives, and it does makes sense to many. And realistically, is any explanation for prohibiting birth control inside of marriage going to make sense to you?

[pioneer]

This is a too simplistic look at evolution and the number of offspring a species has. There is selective advnatages in limiting the number of offspring, otherwise humans would still be using the same breeding technique pioneered early in reproduction evolution: That of having thousands or even millions of offspring and letting them survive on their own.

 

So what you are saying is the brain plays a role in evolution, since all your arguments place reasonable restrictions on birthing, based on the logical inferences created by the brain, either through reading or through one's own common sense. I agree with you. But evolution has been defined to only be about genetics, drift and reproduction. The church dogma is actually consistent with the current science dogma of the DNA being exclusively behind evolution.

 

The reason we need birth control in the first place is because of the genetic impulse to breed. The same result as birth control could be achieved by controlling these impulses, using the brain and will power. Instead, we accept the natural DNA impulses of sex, then use the brain, after the fact, to prevent another natural DNA process. The church stays more natural since it allows the impulse, in marriage, and then allows the cause and effect of sex to go to fruition. But out of marriage, it does use the brain to nip the DNA at the bud; no sex. This avoids a lot of social cost due to unwanted pregnancy where there will not be two parents, thereby having the child lose something that would give advantage. The brain then figured out a way to modify this last result, and called it abortion. But in nature and evolution, the DNA did not figure out an external method to end pregnancy. That was the brain figuring out how to impact evolution. The church stays with natural, unless nature provides a way; miscarriage.

 

Ironically, the church score higher on evolution via DNA.

Edited October 24, 2010 by pioneer

[waitforufo]

What I was taught as a Catholic is that God created humans with a specific nature. Human nature if you will. That fertility was part of that nature. To reject fertility would be to reject human nature. This would lead to humans being treated less than human. This would be particularly true of women. Women being treated as property both inside and outside of marriage. Prostitution is an example. Suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton arrived at this conclusion on their own and were decidedly pro-life.

 

The Church holds that sexual abstinence respects the fertility of human nature. If you don’t want to have children, don’t have sex, because humans are naturally fertile. The Church argues the same with regard to the rhythm method of birth control. The rhythm method works naturally with human nature.

 

I did not and do not practice this teaching in my own life, but this is my understanding of Catholic belief.

[Mr Skeptic]

The Church holds that sexual abstinence respects the fertility of human nature. If you don't want to have children, don't have sex, because humans are naturally fertile. The Church argues the same with regard to the rhythm method of birth control. The rhythm method works naturally with human nature.

 

Abstinence during the fertile period is totally unnatural. The rhythm method of birth control is therefore also unnatural and goes against human nature. The fact is that women are hornier during their fertile period and also somehow more sexually attractive to the men. See for example:

For the effects on men: http://bigthink.com/ideas/24558

For the effects on women: http://www.newlifeafterdivorce.com/Relationships/Married-fertile-women-prefer-single-men.html

[waitforufo]

Abstinence during the fertile period is totally unnatural. The rhythm method of birth control is therefore also unnatural and goes against human nature. The fact is that women are hornier during their fertile period and also somehow more sexually attractive to the men. See for example:

For the effects on men: http://bigthink.com/ideas/24558

For the effects on women: http://www.newlifeafterdivorce.com/Relationships/Married-fertile-women-prefer-single-men.html

 

I think the church would counter that people have a choice in having sex or not. Just like eating is natural, the church considers fasting to be a sign of piety, and gluttony to be a sin. Just because you are horny doesnt mean your sex acts are virtuous.

 

The church also considers humans to be fallen. The sign that you are fallen is that you have a strong inclination to sin. They consider it a virtue to resist that inclination.

Edited October 25, 2010 by waitforufo

[john5746]

So, in post #38, you argue that we should follow human nature, then in #40 you argue that human nature is to sin. OK.

[waitforufo]

So, in post #38, you argue that we should follow human nature, then in #40 you argue that human nature is to sin. OK.

 

The title of this topic is “Why does the catholic church consider birth control immoral?” I’m simply trying to answer the question as I was taught. I’m not trying to argue.

[Edtharan]

So what you are saying is the brain plays a role in evolution, since all your arguments place reasonable restrictions on birthing, based on the logical inferences created by the brain, either through reading or through one's own common sense. I agree with you. But evolution has been defined to only be about genetics, drift and reproduction. The church dogma is actually consistent with the current science dogma of the DNA being exclusively behind evolution.

 

The reason we need birth control in the first place is because of the genetic impulse to breed. The same result as birth control could be achieved by controlling these impulses, using the brain and will power. Instead, we accept the natural DNA impulses of sex, then use the brain, after the fact, to prevent another natural DNA process. The church stays more natural since it allows the impulse, in marriage, and then allows the cause and effect of sex to go to fruition. But out of marriage, it does use the brain to nip the DNA at the bud; no sex. This avoids a lot of social cost due to unwanted pregnancy where there will not be two parents, thereby having the child lose something that would give advantage. The brain then figured out a way to modify this last result, and called it abortion. But in nature and evolution, the DNA did not figure out an external method to end pregnancy. That was the brain figuring out how to impact evolution. The church stays with natural, unless nature provides a way; miscarriage.

 

Ironically, the church score higher on evolution via DNA.

Although I do agree that the brain does play a role in evolution, it was not what I was saying.

 

The fact is that for a sexually reproducing specie's population to remain stable there needs to be exactly two (no more no less) offspring grow up to be breeders.

 

Now, if a species of animals had reproduced to fill a niche, then there is a disadvantage for reproducing at greater than the stable rate. The reason is that the extra offspring use resources (food) that other members of the species need, and thus, even if these extra offspring die, the time they are around they consume more food. This means that there will be a lower population than if the species had less offspring.

 

So as a species fills a niche you would expect them to evolve to have less offspring. There is no thought process involved, just selective advantage of having less offspring because it supports a larger population of adults (and thus becomes less vulnerable to extinction and has more variation in the gene pool which gives the species more opertunity to enter new niches as well).

 

You might not have noticed, but humans are breeding (I was going to say like rabbits, but I think we even leave rabbits to shame in this regard ) very rappidly. Also, most of the children are born in wedlock (so extra marrital children are not a big problem). The real need is for married couples to be able to limit the number of children they have and family planing (which contraception is a big part of) is essential.

 

The church likes to trot out reasons for banning contraception, like it encourages sex out side of marriage, but the numbers just don't add up. Extra marital children are not a big problem with or without contraception. The real place where contraception has the advantage and would greatly increase the quality of life for parents and children too is with married couples.

 

In countries with contraception and less stigma attached to it, family sizes are smaller. In countried where the church has lied about contraception (that it encourages infedelity, that it increases the risk of deseases, etc) family sizes are much larger and the populations are poorer because if it (children need resources as they grow up and it is the parents and family that have to supply them which means less resources, like food, to go around all of them, including the new children too).

 

Maybe you place unnatural importance on sex. If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without sex, don't you think there is something wrong?

Sex is an expression of the emotions one feels towards a partner. If the church told you you could not say "I love you" to your wife or husband, I think you would be outraged. They are controing how you express your feelings towards your partner. But, to use your argument and paraphrase it (bod where I have change it): "If you can't form an emotional bond with your wife without saying 'I love you', don't you think there is something wrong?"

 

Some people like to write and some people like to dance. Each is an expression of the emotions they have inside them. Some people like to express their feelings towards their partner with words, other like to express them physically. The church is telling people they can't express their love physically if they want to, without the chance that they will have a child (which means the family could become worse off).

 

The fact is, the majority of human communication is non-verbal (around 75% to 80% IIRC). Sex is just one way of expressing how a couple feels towards each other, and it is a non verbal expression. But, yes I can form an emotional bond with a partner without having sex, but why should the church try to limit the way I express that bond?

[zapatos]

The church likes to trot out reasons for banning contraception, like it encourages sex out side of marriage...

 

In countries with contraception and less stigma attached to it, family sizes are smaller.

 

In countried where the church has lied about contraception (that it encourages infedelity, that it increases the risk of deseases, etc) family sizes are much larger and the populations are poorer because if it

Can you please give examples and sources? I don't ever seem to recall hearing that the Catholic church said contraception encourages sex outside of marriage, that it encourages infidelity, or that it increases the risk of diseases.

 

I'm also curious about studies that have shown larger family sizes causing poorer populations, and in which countries the church has lied about contraception with the result being much larger family sizes.

 

And of course I'd like to know where it has been shown that "less stigma" with contraception causes smaller family sizes.

Edited October 28, 2010 by zapatos

[zapatos]

The church use to sell indulgences. This is you could pre-purchace the right to sin. So the church has allowed people to knowlingly sin (and made a profit from it too). SO this argument is clearly false.

(My bold)

 

False.

 

"Those who attack the Church for its use of indulgences rely upon—and take advantage of—the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics.

 

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power." "

 

http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

Edited October 28, 2010 by zapatos

[Edtharan]

Can you please give examples and sources? I don't ever seem to recall hearing that the Catholic church said contraception encourages sex outside of marriage, that it encourages infidelity, or that it increases the risk of diseases.

Here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p6humana.htm (section 17)

 

And Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

 

Yes, this is official Church policy handed down by the Pope.

 

I'm also curious about studies that have shown larger family sizes causing poorer populations, and in which countries the church has lied about contraception with the result being much larger family sizes.

This is a simple matter of division.

 

If a family earns X amount of dollars a week, and they have 3 family members, then each has (as an avarage) X / 3 resources each. If a family has 5 members, then each has X /5 resources each.

 

As 1/3 is larger than 1/5, then larger families can devote less resources to each member.

 

Of course, some of thes resources aren't shared like this (like the house the family is in) and I am only concentrating on resources that are shared like this (education, food, etc). As cost of Education is one, and education is one of the major contributors to poverty, then this is a critical issue. Less resources to put into education can mean that to get a decent education for some of the children will mean that other will have to miss out in large families.

 

And of course I'd like to know where it has been shown that "less stigma" with contraception causes smaller family sizes.

Ok, this is just obvious. In a country where contraception is activly discouraged and there is a social moor against it, then it will be used less. This means that there will be more children born because there is less ability to prevent pregnacy.

 

When people (especially women) have control over how many children they have, then smaller families are preferred for many reasons.

[zapatos]

Here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p6humana.htm (section 17)

This says that conjugal infidelity is easier, not that it is an encouragement. I'm not sure that is the same thing. When Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system was he making it easy for me to get to California, or was he encouraging me to go?

 

And Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

Yes, this is official Church policy handed down by the Pope.

 

This says the church is accused of telling people condoms do not protect against HIV. Once again, I'm not sure that is the same as condoms "increasing the risk of disease". I didn't see the pope mentioned at all.

 

 

This is a simple matter of division.

 

If a family earns X amount of dollars a week, and they have 3 family members, then each has (as an avarage) X / 3 resources each. If a family has 5 members, then each has X /5 resources each.

 

As 1/3 is larger than 1/5, then larger families can devote less resources to each member.

 

Of course, some of thes resources aren't shared like this (like the house the family is in) and I am only concentrating on resources that are shared like this (education, food, etc). As cost of Education is one, and education is one of the major contributors to poverty, then this is a critical issue. Less resources to put into education can mean that to get a decent education for some of the children will mean that other will have to miss out in large families.

In the previous post you didn't say a family would have less money while raising the children, you said the population would be poorer. Presumably people grow up and go to work and then there is more income. If everyone gets a job when they grow up, then having more children has no impact on the wealth of the population.

 

And thanks for pointing out that 1/3 is larger than 1/5, but what I asked for was a study pointing out that larger family sizes causes poorer populations.

 

Ok, this is just obvious. In a country where contraception is activly discouraged and there is a social moor against it, then it will be used less. This means that there will be more children born because there is less ability to prevent pregnacy.

 

When people (especially women) have control over how many children they have, then smaller families are preferred for many reasons.

So your proof of argument is that it is obvious to you. Good job!

 

And I don't know what this proves except that it is not obvious to me, but:

 

Birth rate in Niger: 51.6 births/1000 population

Birth rate in Spain: 9.72 births/1000 population

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=25

 

% Catholic in Niger: 0.1%

% Catholic in Spain: 94%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

Edited November 4, 2010 by zapatos

[Moontanman]

Falling Birth-Rate Can Bring Prosperity, Austrian Studies Suggest

 

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2010) — The population is aging -- and demographic change is also altering working life. However, according to studies by researchers at Vienna University of Technology, the effects could well be positive.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103082304.htm

[Edtharan]

This says that conjugal infidelity is easier, not that it is an encouragement. I'm not sure that is the same thing. When Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system was he making it easy for me to get to California, or was he encouraging me to go?

If the church didn't think that it didn't encourage extra marital sex, then there would be no reason to bring it up as a point of argument. The fact that it was brought up as a point of argument is proof that they believe it increases (ie: encourages) extra marital sex.

 

This says the church is accused of telling people condoms do not protect against HIV. Once again, I'm not sure that is the same as condoms "increasing the risk of disease". I didn't see the pope mentioned at all.

In cases where one partner had HIV they were advised not to use condoms as it increased the risk of desease. I think that is pretty clear cut that they think it increases the risk.

 

In the previous post you didn't say a family would have less money while raising the children, you said the population would be poorer. Presumably people grow up and go to work and then there is more income. If everyone gets a job when they grow up, then having more children has no impact on the wealth of the population.

If evey family is poorer, then the country is poorer. Such as it is with a family. A country only has so many resources to go around. The more people in the counrty, the less resources any one person can get (and again, not all resources scale like this, but food, and other such reosurces do and these are the important ones).

 

And thanks for pointing out that 1/3 is larger than 1/5, but what I asked for was a study pointing out that larger family sizes causes poorer populations.

If a country has X resources, for a given population of Y. Then the amount of resouces is X/Y. But if the population of the country increases by N, then the resoucres each person gets is X/(Y+N) as as Y+N is greater than Y, then this means the amount of resources for each person is less than the first case.

 

Children, until they are no longer children, can not contribute as much to the production of resources as adults can. Not only that, if children are requiered to do so, then this reduces the amount of time they can be doeing other things that would help their countries in the long term, like getting an education.

 

If a family had to make a choice about feeding their children, or sending them to school, then I know which one they would choose. Which one would you choose?

 

So your proof of argument is that it is obvious to you. Good job!

 

And I don't know what this proves except that it is not obvious to me, but:

 

Birth rate in Niger: 51.6 births/1000 population

Birth rate in Spain: 9.72 births/1000 population

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=25

 

% Catholic in Niger: 0.1%

% Catholic in Spain: 94%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_by_country

Which I then explained, in case it was not obvious.

 

My proof was not that it was obvious. As I then went on to explain education about birth control and access to it are the factors that lead to lower birth rates.

 

Actually, your statsitcs prove my point. Spain does not have the social moors against contraception. Proper education about birth control and what options is widly available, and even though the population is mostly Catholic, they have the education to see through the lies of the church propaganda about it. Thus even though theya re catholic, they practice birth control and thus have a lower birth rate.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[zapatos]

If a family had to make a choice about feeding their children, or sending them to school, then I know which one they would choose. Which one would you choose?

 

 

Which I then explained, in case it was not obvious.

 

My proof was not that it was obvious. As I then went on to explain education about birth control and access to it are the factors that lead to lower birth rates.

 

Actually, your statsitcs prove my point. Spain does not have the social moors against contraception. Proper education about birth control and what options is widly available, and even though the population is mostly Catholic, they have the education to see through the lies of the church propaganda about it. Thus even though theya re catholic, they practice birth control and thus have a lower birth rate.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

All I wanted was for you to supply some sources to back up the assertions you made. I find that you are very good at that when you are on the science forums. Over here you seem to accept a much lower standard. And laughing at me ( ) and implying that I'm a dumbass ( ) isn't really adding much to the conversation.