Why Contraception Is Morally Wrong
The belief that contraception and other forms of artificial birth control are not contrary to God’s law and to ethical, rational, human conduct is one of the most divisive and contentious moral errors of our day.
The answer to this confusion about the morality of contraception is a statement made by the Catholic Church through the mouth of Pope Pius XI in 1930. It is not necessary to be a Catholic to recognize its evident truth. The truth will be so evident that even atheists, and agnostics interested in ethical conduct, as well as members of the Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic religious faiths, can all recognize its truth on its own merits. The issue really is that simple and clear.
The statement, from Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical, “Casti Connubi”, “On Christian Marriage lays out this truth:
the Catholic Church, … through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of Matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
Because it is essential to accurately and correctly understand what Pope Pius XI actually meant by this statement, some history and background explanation is needed, especially given there is a large percentage of people who do not see any ethical or moral problem in the use of contraceptives.
Historically, some Catholic theologians recognized the statements surrounding the actual definition of a doctrine of faith or morals by Pope Pius XI as fully meeting the requirements of the defined Catholic dogma that under certain conditions a definition of Faith or Morals by the Pope is divinely protected and thus “irreformable”. That is, there is no error in what the definition explicitly states.
Other Catholic theologians rejected that conclusion with the response, “It cannot be such a definition because the statement that the ‘Church … proclaims anew’ is self evidently false.” These theologians were correctly pointing out that the Catholic Church had never before explicitly declared that the identified act is the reason why the use of contraceptives is morally wrong!
Personally, I did not consider that the “error” in that part of the statement was a problem because I saw that part as merely a statement by Pope Pius XI that he was officially ascribing the statement to the Catholic Church in his Christ-designated role of the visible head of the Church here on earth. I did not see the phrase, “Church … proclaims anew” as in any sense defining a doctrine of the Church. Thus, that statement would not have been a part of the Divinely protected irreformable definition.
In practice, from the time when I converted to the Catholic Church until now, I have not come across any emphasis upon this encyclical and more specifically any explicit mention of this statement in discussions about the morality of contraceptives.
However, I am aware that this statement and another one slightly later in the encyclical do form the basis of present-day Catholic teaching on the subject.
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons, either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights, there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
I’m aware of another papal teaching by Pope Pius XII in a statement to mid-wives (this from unverified memory) sometime after the end of WWII. This teaching approved of the intentional use of only the natural periods of infertility – if there was a valid moral reason for avoiding the conception of a new child.
Later, in July of 1968, Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical letter, “Humanae Vitae”, popularly known as “Of Human Life”. Approximately 83 theologians immediately, whether the same day or within a few days, issued their rejection and opposition to that encyclical’s teaching. In doing this, they violated a basic rule of “Academic Freedom” by including the name of the educational establishments with which they were affiliated for the purpose of lending greater weight to their opinions than they would have achieved if they had only used their own names. This misuse of the educational establishment’s reputation was a direct violation of the terms of Academic Freedom. And to be totally blunt, they were in absolute rebellion against the teaching of the popes and the Catholic faith.
This support from a rebellious group of prominent Catholic theologians added to the powerful natural desire of everyone not to have any restraint on one’s powerful sexual desires. In that way, it contributed to the present state of confusion and uncertainty among Catholics regarding the morality of using artificial methods of birth control. This confusion exists despite the clear, consistent, and unambiguous teaching of the magisterium of the Church. In fact, I’ve long been aware that these papal teachings corrected a history of theological error at the heart of theological opinion concerning marital morality.
At that time, one of the arguments undermining and thus attacking the special role in the Church of Peter and his successors was that Pope Paul VI had withdrawn the examination of the contraceptive issue from consideration by the Bishops of Vatican Council II. It was also asserted that Pope Paul VI had ignored the conclusions and recommendations of the special committee he had established to research the issue. (The innuendo was that these two acts were inappropriate, unjustified, and erroneous actions by Pope Paul VI.) That argument is still occasionally used today by a few that are weak in the Faith or poorly informed Catholics!
I submit, what seems obvious to me, that forming a committee or commission to examine an issue for the purpose of providing information to a bishop, the bishops as a whole, or to the Pope is not and was never intended to be a transfer or abdication to the committee of the Episcopal or Papal obligation and authority to actually decide that moral issue. Remember that:
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls (Dei Verbum” [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation] Chapter II, paragraph 10).
Just a few weeks ago, in late October of 2022, while reviewing an earlier article that quoted Pope Pius XI’s statement; my perception shifted. For the first time in over forty years, I saw the meaning that Pope Pius XI – or possibly only the Holy Spirit – actually meant by the statement:
the Catholic Church, … through our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of Matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature
The doctrine that Pope Pius XI proclaimed anew was not the Church’s prior teaching regarding artificial methods of birth control at all! Pope Pius XI “proclaimed anew” a much more fundamental and long-standing Catholic doctrine or general definition in specific and explicit terms that accurately describe exactly what everyone who uses any form of artificial contraception does.
The general explanation of the existence of evil begins with the fact that evil is not some positive thing that had to be created. Rather:
Evil is the privation (i.e., the deliberate exclusion) of a good that ought to be present.
If the absence of a good that ought to be present seems to be too thin a reality to explain all the destruction that has been caused by evil, I suggest that you consider the absence of only a few feet of the intact hull in the case of a Titanic or an Andrea Dorea disaster. Or consider the effect of the disappearance of the pole holding up a large circus tent.
The difficulty is not a failure to see that the absence of something can be powerfully destructive; rather, the problem is the failure to recognize how devastating the absence of some non-physical “good” that ought to be present can be.
For some, it may remain to be recognized that such an exclusion of a good that ought to be present is indeed the fundamental and unavoidable character of all evil. I’ll provide only one example. Consider all the harm that the ability to exclude the truth from our use of language to communicate our intent or purpose to a neighbor has caused throughout history; and even in daily life. Just look about you to see the harm it is doing in and to our society today.
Simply replacing that general historic definition or doctrine of evil with specific words that accurately describe the contraceptive act yields:
Any use whatsoever of Matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is” [evil and hence] “an offense against the law of God and of nature”
I submit that anyone of moderate intelligence can see the point with only a little effort. The two obvious goods of the matrimonial act that ought to be present are the potential for a new human life and the good of fostering and strengthening of the permanent working together of the husband and wife in the marital state, which is so essential for the children born of their union and a great boon to the two individuals themselves.
Whether this is merely a biological good that is the raw material of recognizing ethical conduct, as the atheist and to some extent the agnostic might believe; or the design of God, as theists believe; contraception is undeniably a positive definitive act intended to exclude the conception of a new life that ought to be present in the marital act.
Incidentally, this means that those who, in their thinking, ignore or deny; and thus, exclude from their analysis and teaching of marital morality, the good that married couples receive from the marital act have also committed a serious moral evil.
For my brothers and sisters in Faith, I finish the sharing of my discovery of the evil of contraception that was identified by Pope Pius XI in his 1930 encyclical with Scripture’s instruction in 1 Thess 5: 19–22:
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.
The assumption that we understand more than we do is one example of how many people fall for the bait that was used by the serpent to deceive Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis 3: 4-5:
But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’
Note that a whole statement with two possible meanings would not be an irreformable statement if one of the meanings was false. Thus, in the case of Pope Pius XI’s statement, the entire statement is true in its correct understanding, and thus irreformable as a practical fact, and in the alternative meaning, my Catholic Faith bears witness that the truth of the defining part of the statement is assured by Divine protection.
It is important to carefully note that the Catholic dogma only affirms that the defining part of the statement is guaranteed to be irreformable by Divine protection if as I believe, it meets all the conditions that were explicitly identified as being necessary.
It continues to puzzle and amaze me that so many Protestants, and even some Catholics, put more faith in the opinions of a group of apostate Catholics than they put in Scripture’s record of the teaching of Jesus and the Church that He established and promised to protect.
My conclusion is that the anti-Christ has woven a powerful web of misunderstanding and error in the minds of many people whose fault is the making of frequently unstated, often unconscious, and tragically unexamined assumptions, based upon too little and massively incomplete information.
The truth or falsity of the material of this article is for each reader to prayerfully test and judge for him or herself. I am personally certain that this article illustrates that testing of the validity of our faith, both yours and mine, that Scripture affirms in 2 Cor 13: 5 Note also Jer 17: 10, James 1:2, and James 1: 12.
22 thoughts on “The Truth About Contraception Is Hidden, Concealed, and Masked”
Notice how nearly all of the responses to my article divert attention away from the simple point that I actually identified. No one has directly addressed the point of the article that is an elementary logical conclusion.
Based upon the long standing identification of the concept that is widely accepted as a fact among people who have given the subject serious thought that:
“Evil is the privation of a good that ought to be present”
It follows immediately as a logical conclusion that:
“Any use whatsoever of Matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is
deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is” [evil and hence]
“an offense against the law of God and of nature, ….”
Note that while I provided the historical background of where we are and a personal statement of my own faith, I did not argue my faith as a basis for anyone else’s conclusion or choice of action.
Rather, I invited and emphasized the importance of every reader seriously seeking the truth for him or her self, based upon the above information. .
I now add one more recommendation: do thoughtfully and prayerfully consider the message of Heb 4: 1-2 as you read Hebrews 5: 1-14. Do not ignore or dismiss the truth that: “9…HE BECAME THE SOURCE OF ETERNAL SALVATION FOR ALL WHO OBEY HIM, 10 having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”
To Steven ML – ” I do! I have interpreted it …”
How about a short synopsis of verses 21-24 then.
“The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” This is very significant. It has been revealed that the skin was actually sheepskin, a type of Elisha and Elijah’s sheepskin mantle, the instrumentality of which was used by the Holy Spirit in many miracles. It represents our redemption through the instrumentality of the humanity of Jesus — his bodily death and Resurrection. In effect, God was telling Adam and Eve, I’m kicking you out of Eden so that you can be redeemed and raised to the Father.
“Man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil!” Obviously, God knows about good and evil. Man learned of it in a different way, and experiences it in a different state. When their eyes were opened and they lost Original Justice, their disordered nature came to know (biblically speaking) good and evil intrinsically. Their bodies functioned in large part the same way animals function — through the interpretation of their sense. Good is what feels good, bad is what feels bad.
“And now perhaps he will put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” The Tree of Life is the Son of God in his Divinity and his complete humanity. The fruit is the Eucharist, the Covenant of Salt. If they had eaten the fruit of the tree, they would not die. They would live forever — unredeemed. Without their sheepskin. They would be separated from God forever.
To Steven ML
I’m impressed with your interpretation but not convinced. Overall, this is an analogy
and not in the historical record. The ‘apple’ has many layers too and none sufficiently explained. It brought “death” into the world and the ONLY means of doing that, then,
and now, is to bring children into the world. There is NO other way for a human to cause mortality. That is a very obvious and valid way to interpret the tree of feel “good” and “bad” (good and evil ). Finishing up with Gen 3: 24 we read: He drove out the man; and at the East of Eden he placed the Cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to guard the way ( not, guide the way ) to the tree of life – It seems He didn’t want them to acquire it. The next chapter is about Cain and Abel and presents another challenge. God had not rescinded his ‘menu’ for the human diet, and so Abel, the first recorded person to kill, was killed, by Cain, who was a farmer. See, this is what interpretation is all about, and in this thread it all started with using or misusing the word “put” as opposed to “allow” The bottom line of which (IMO) indicate something God would not do. However many layers you can perceive it is also true that the long evolving human brain and raised
contentiousness of mankind over many millennia can be read into Genesis – however, I have decided to no longer step foot into this arena called Genesis as it will always be a moot question, and in my case, not worthy of censorship.
Thanks for your input AOP. You wrote that you believe that Genesis is analogy. Anyone who tries interpreting Scripture as though it is written using mythopoetic formulation is very likely to misinterpret Genesis. Yet, all too often, exegetes try to apply the meaning of modern-day myth as a basis for interpreting the ancient Hebrew used by Moses [or other] (circa 1480 BC) when Genesis was written.
Mythopoeia formulation did not even exist until the Hellenistic Greek period (circa 300 BC to 300 AD) — eleven centuries after Genesis was likely written. Using a linguistic style that did not even exist when Genesis was written is not hermeneutically valid. During the Hellenistic period, the meaning of myth began to change to a language of mere story-telling, employing poetic language, having no relation to non-fiction literature. Some have equated mythopoeia as the language of fake/artificial myth. J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is an example of a mythopoetic formulation. So, what does an expert on Hebrew linguistics in Moses’ day have to say about myth?
Bernard F. Batto has his Ph.D. in Linguistics. He is a Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePauw University. He specializes in interpreting the Hebrew Bible within its ancient Near Eastern cultural and historical context. He served as the Old Testament book review editor and associate editor for The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Batto tells us that ancient Hebrew myth in Moses’ time was used to convey paradigmatic shifts in understanding, usually during the time of origins.
The linguistic tool used to describe a paradigmatic shift in understanding during Genesis is called paradigmatic substitution. The differing linguistics between the different periods of history is why it is not accurate to describe the writings of Genesis as analogy, metaphor, or allegory. Genesis is written in mythical language — but not as a metaphorical/allegorical story. If one interprets it as a symbolic story, one will fail to interpret Genesis correctly. Put another way, Genesis is history written in the language of myth. It is history written in the language of paradigmatic shifts in understanding.
Batto provides us with a modern-day example of mythical (employing paradigmatic substitution) language as it would have occurred in Moses’ time. When trying to identify the very beginning of the creation of the universe, it was given the description — The Big Bang. This wording is a beautiful example of using mythical language to describe the paradigmatic shift in our understanding of a scientific truth (or so we believe it to be true). This wording employs paradigmatic substitution to convey the larger scientific truth that most people could not even begin to understand to any significant detail.
To sum up, let’s read what Mark Shea, President of Ignatius Press, had to say. He wrote, “How can Genesis use figurative language, but still affirm a [historical] primeval event? It can do it because mythic language is precisely the best way to affirm such an event, [to describe] an upheaval [i.e., a paradigmatic shift] … mythic language is truer language than newspaper language, because it brings us to the heart of what happened.”
Not only is much of Genesis historical, it also contains at least four cutting-edge (and irrefutable) biological mysteries of science hidden in the text of Scripture in an applied sciences ways.
To Steven ML – Two can ‘entertain too’. If something can mean this or that it stands to reason it is all speculation. In my response to MJJ I asked about culpability and since God can’t be held to that charge then it is obvious any interpretation is flawed. Here’s one for you to muse, translated from Latin Vulgate of the Family Rosary Commemorative bible.
Gen 3 21-24 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And He said, “Indeed ! The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil ! And now perhaps he will put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever !” Therefore the Lord God put him out of the garden to till the ground from which he was taken. Funny how no one wants to interpret that excerpt and that was my whole point.
Thanks for your reply, AOP. MJJ’s post was about the deletion of two comments. I never read the two comments that were deleted. Consequently, I must admit that I didn’t understand your reply to MJJ. So, I will respond to what I “think” you mean when you say, “If something can mean this or that it stands to reason it is all speculation.” I am also assuming (based on your Scripture reference to Genesis) that the latter somehow relates to the former.
I don’t agree with your statement quoted above. Many Protestants look out upon the ocean that represents the complete exegetical understanding of the Word of God in Scripture. They only plumb the surface — what can be seen from a superficial standpoint. They don’t understand that this ocean has great depth. Theologians understand that the knowledge contained in Scripture is polyvalent. Each passage may contain multiple layers of meaning. Each layer contributing to the fuller understanding of the various passages. As long as one layer of meaning does not contradict the others, there is no reason to automatically assume the two (or more) layers of meaning are mere speculation.
You wrote: “Here’s one for you to muse.” Actually, I have — for quite some time. You also wrote, “no one wants to interpret that excerpt and that was my whole point.” I do! I have interpreted it and other passages relative to the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life, The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Original Sin, etc. I have just completed and published a twenty-four thousand word article (published in two parts) that deals with a deeper understanding of Eden, the Garden surrounding Eden, the Tree of Life, etc. Part One can be found here:
https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?11-15-2022—-the-garden-of-eden–location-of-the-very-first-eucharistic-celebration-within-history-
I also wrote a thirty thousand word article (published in three parts) explaining in detail Original Sin and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Part One can be found here:
https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?10-04—-original-sin–part-one
Gen 3: 24 we read: He drove out the man; and at the East of Eden he placed the Cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to guard the way ( not, guide the way ) to the tree of life – It seems He didn’t want them to acquire it.
And one FINAL addendum to my last post : this turning every every way to way guard the tree of life is right in line with the actions of a ‘jealous god’, and I for one could never attribute that sin with my Creator
Thank you for the detailed, professional explanation of facts per Professor Batto, yourself and other named sources. So, let a laymen once last time try his hand at hermeneutical reasoning. You say,
“Not only is much of Genesis historical, it also contains at least four cutting-edge (and irrefutable) biological mysteries of science hidden in the text of Scripture.”
The latter is definitely true. My issue is with the former – “much of Genesis is historical …” I’m contesting the ‘much’ that isn’t. I’m concerned that many of the words of man that are put in the mouth of God are pure conjecture albeit with noble intent; even as what is ascribed is not what a loving God would project. It is inconceivable that God would ‘allow ‘ a superior demonic being access to two very vulnerable finite beings given the high odds of entrapment. Free will in this case would be the equivalent of giving a child a gun and not expecting a tragedy. Nor, ie: would God whisper into the ear of a Patriarch to kill all the men, woman and children of a rival tribe that held land they wanted. Mythic language aside, you are dealing with profound moral implications justified by hearsay. There are many paradigm shifts a coming down humanity’s long hard road, but taking one from the mists of time and upholding it as the holy grail of revelations is too simplistic a concept.
Evolution also explains our rather slow ascension to enlightenment. Jesus is the Light of the world – and symbolize as you like the analogy of mythical Adam redeemed, the utter confusion and contrary meanings wrought by Genesis is long overdue for correction.
All rational humans contain spiritual souls breathed into them by God. The spiritual soul’s upper powers (the spirit) are intellect, free will (i.e., charity, love), and memory. The lower power of the spiritual soul is simply the “soul.” The soul directs all of the biological functions of the body. ALL true love involves a choice of our free will. No choice made — no love — no Covenant of Salt with God. This necessity of choice is why the angels were tested. They were not capable of loving God without making a free will choice to love God. The same choice HAD TO BE MADE by Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve are real people. And no, they were not born of pre-existing human animals into which God inserted a rational soul. When God says that man was made from the dust of the earth — he was being literal. The terms salt and dust of the world are direct and intentional references to our salt and dust of DNA [ https://www.stossbooks.com/is-dna-in-the-bible.html ]. I can prove it to you if you want. But, when God talks about the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, he provides a more detailed account of that process. [ https://www.stossbooks.com/creation-of-eve.html ] He did so for a reason. He wanted to ensure that we knew that ALL rational man came from one set of human rational parents. The process he describes is the exact science as is necessary to create one person from the raw material of a different person. Opoe St, John Paul II tells us that our first parents creation pre-existing genetic material would not violate Catholic Doctrine or Dogma, It also reveals how the woman was made in complementarity to the man. Why was the rib, which is in close proximity to the beating heart, used?
In the Genesis creation account, Moses revealed to us (with or without his personal comprehension of said fact) the science behind surgery and adult stem cell therapy. Two current-day geneticists have marveled at the analogy between sleep and anesthesia (as would be necessary for bone marrow transplant). According to Drs. Francesco and Michele Callea, “The recent discovery (or rediscovery) of stem cells in bone marrow and their application in regenerative medicine would seem to support the hypothesis that the development of science could be predicted from the story of Adam’s rib. Surprisingly, the progress of science, in turn, may lead us to look again into the narrative of our evolutionary ancestry.”
The Hebrew word for dust in Genesis is ‘aphar,’ which translates as “dust (as powdered or gray); hence, clay, earth, mud [Strongs 6083].” Even atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted that Genesis may have accurately described how animal man was made. According to the article, “Clay is made up of tiny crystals which when fed with water are capable of growing, splitting off and giving rise to identical (or near-identical crystals) … Mr. Cairns-Smith proposed biological molecules like DNA began to associate with these complex crystals and eventually a ‘genetic takeover’ took place.”
As for the “out of Africa” theory of a common ancestor with mitochondrial Adam and mitochondrial Eve, I show that Conn et al.’s research helps to prove the existence of biblical Adam and Eve [Part II of III is here: https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?mitochondrial-eve-should-christians-be-worried–part-ii%5D and proves they were not born of animal man parents.
The ban on contraception is one very large piece of evidence that the Catholic Church REALLY HATES women. Your church considers wife-beating harmless and even beneficial in some cases (see this: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5060.htm) but a woman who wants to enjoy sex with her husband is obligated to endure constant pregnancies. Husbands are, of course, completely entitled to demand sex whenever he wants it regardless of his wife’s opinion and she has no capacity to refuse or even object. Women in Catholicism exist SOLELY to be examples of sin and evil or to be doormats devoted to the nasty work of housekeeping or, maybe, nuns. No woman can exist as an independent adult human in your religion.
And please don’t insult me with any Mary crap. Mary in your church is effectively a goddess, not a human. You teach that she never had a period or labor pains or ever contradicted Joseph and was perfectly beautiful and entirely passive. You turn the brave Jewish teenager into a combination of a terrible mother in law and the nastiest Mean Girl in the sorority. Your Mary is exactly the kind of woman fantasized by men who hate women.
You will never have the courage to answer my arguments.
You are reading the Summa wrongly. Aquinas puts up a statement in the form of an ‘objection’, then proceeds to answer the error in the objection. The Church’s answer starts with ‘On the contrary’. For example https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5060.htm …
Objection 1. It would seem lawful for a man to kill his wife if she be discovered in the act of adultery. For the Divine law commanded adulterous wives to be stoned. Now it is not a sin to fulfill the Divine law. Neither therefore is it a sin to kill one’s own wife if she be an adulteress.
Aquinas answers…
On the contrary, It is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 37) that “the Church of God is never bound by the laws of this world, for she has none but a spiritual sword.” Therefore it would seem that he who wishes to belong to the Church cannot rightly take advantage of the law which permits a man to kill his wife.
Further, husband and wife are judged on a par. But it is not lawful for a wife to kill her husband if he be discovered in adultery. Neither therefore may a husband kill his wife.
Obviously, you were completely and utterly wrong about somebody having the courage to answer. To be honest, it doesn’t take courage, just a bette4 knowledge of the truth than you possess. In Pope Paul VI encyclical, Humane Vita, he warned of the consequences of the use of intentional/inherent sterilization, i.e., birth control. Your incoherent rantings are a perfect example of the fact that his predictions were spot-on. By examining the Hebrew words of God’s Name/Essence (I Am that I Am) the Trinity shows us that an essential part of God’s Essence is eternal and unceasing fruitfulness. We are created in God’s image and likeness. This is why the very first positive command God gives to Adam and Eve is, “be fruitful and multiply.”
When one employs artificial birth control, it destroys the likeness of God within those participating in that sterile act. All of your rantings about how woman are being treated, is a direct consequence of intentional/inherent sterility.
You are just like someone who buys a new car, drives it recklessly, doesn’t do recommended maintenance, puts non-recommended accessories on the vehicle. Then when the car ceases to function properly, they blame the manufacturer for making junk. What excessive pride and ignorance (of the hypothetical person, of course).
Birth Control is ANTI-family. You know who else is anti-family, Karen? Atheistic Marxists. You aren’t one of those, are you?
Francesca, read what I linked. Aquinas absolutely does think that a man can kill his wife if he discovers her in the act of adultery and further, approves of men turning over their adulterous wives to the secular authorities for legal imposition of thr death penalty. Aquinas denies an equivalent right to wives who just have to endure cheating husbands and can’r even divorce them.
Wives have NO ability to leave or punish husbands who beat or cheat on them in traditional Catholic societies. Men have only rights in Catholicism and women have no rights but only duties.
Stephen Michael Lenninger — you didn’t answer anything I said. Without birth control women will either have to live apart from their husbands or be constantly pregnant. (Google Kennedy Hall’s ‘The Cesarean Cross’ and read about how a traditional Catholic husband is slowly destroying his wife by repeated constant C-sections.) I have reality on my side.
I did reply to your comments. You simply either didn’t want to hear what I wrote or wouldn’t hear what I wrote. That being the case … goodbye.
A high amount of single parent homes, high divorce rates and so on, sounds loveless too. The defenders are out there such as on the show Trending with Timmerie on Relevant Radio or I am sure many others. It does not seem like what you are discussing is a recipe to success at all.
“Two comments on this article have been deleted due to inaccuracies, misquotes, egregious statements, and/or falsehoods contained in the statements.”
1) God did not put the snake in the Garden of Eden. He allowed the snake to enter the Garden of Eden.
2) Deliberately misquoting (taking a quote out of context) St. Thomas Aquinas and making outrageously fallacious arguments is egregious. Stating that a Papal Encyclical says something it does not say is a falsehood.
What was ‘out of context’ or misquoted in my Aquinas reference? I linked directly to a Catholic site. Aquinas approved of wife-beating and killing and there is no way to sugarcoat that.
The Catholic church hates women.
So if you ‘allow’ someone to get behind the wheel drunk that means you’re not culpable ?
As a thought to entertain, the snake may have been nothing more than a phantasm used by Satan. Or, hypothetically, the snake could have been a physical reptile entered into by Satan, like a possessed person or how they entered into swine after being ordered to leave a possessed person.
Bravo, James Harris. The Church needs much greater exposure to the truths you have expressed. Satan was given a 100-120 year period to destroy the Church. It is my belief that the introduction of intentional/inherent sterility was the very first step in Satan’s battle plan. Without it, he could not successfully employ the doctrine of Balaam to destroy the Church by destroying the domestic Church … as the family goes, so goes the world. I wrote a three-part blog titled, “The Beast of Revelation is Not Coming: It’s Here.” Part One can be found here:
https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?the-beast-of-scripture-is-not-coming,-it-s-here
I have no opinion concerning the very first step, but I have noticed that allowing divorce for any reason other than the legitimate protection of the innocent spouse from an abusive spouse was the first easily identified step in Satan’s goal of destroying the very concept of marriage. The widespread use of contraceptives was the second step. Abortion was the third step. And the absurdity of calling a same-sex union a “marriage” was the final step in eliminating any connection between marriage and procreation.