Is contraception immoral...

[SpiritDragon]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification, Vort.

 

I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I'm missing something because in my head I'm just having a hard time making sense of this. You said no act is objectively immoral in and of itself (unless it's part of a word's definition). So would it be correct of me to say that genocide, fornication, adultery, are also not objectively immoral acts in and of themselves? This seems a little strange to me, but like I said, perhaps I'm missing something. 

 

Hi CatholicLady,

 

I think what might be causing some confusion is separating words with specific definitions surrounding an action from the action itself. For instance sex is an action, that is fully acceptable and wonderful within the bonds of matrimony, but as soon as we use terms like fornication or adultery we have already added the context to the action (sex in this case) to redefine it outside of matrimony, so while sex isn't inherently evil - the other word quickly clarify conditions where it is inappropriate. The same goes for killing, there may be times that is not evil, such as in the old testament offering sacrifice as required or even of another human being in self defense as a last resort, or under the rare instances that God actually commands it. But when defined as killing of innocents than it is wrong. 

[CatholicLady]

Hi CatholicLady,

 

I think what might be causing some confusion is separating words with specific definitions surrounding an action from the action itself. For instance sex is an action, that is fully acceptable and wonderful within the bonds of matrimony, but as soon as we use terms like fornication or adultery we have already added the context to the action (sex in this case) to redefine it outside of matrimony, so while sex isn't inherently evil - the other word quickly clarify conditions where it is inappropriate. The same goes for killing, there may be times that is not evil, such as in the old testament offering sacrifice as required or even of another human being in self defense as a last resort, or under the rare instances that God actually commands it. But when defined as killing of innocents than it is wrong. 

 

I agree with this 100%, but this just doesn't seem like what was being said.

[Just_A_Guy]

God kills. I personally define every act of God as "good", so such killing is good by definition.

 

Obeying God is always good. Nephi killed Laban under commandment from God. Ergo, good.

 

I'm not convinced.  If killing is good, then doesn't it follow that God enjoys wiping out entire cities (or instructing His servants to behead inebriated dirtbags they find in the street)?

 

If not, why not? 

Edited January 18, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[PolarVortex]

I'm not convinced.  If killing is good, then doesn't it follow that God enjoys wiping out entire cities (or instructing His servants to behead inebriated dirtbags they find in the street)?

 

If not, why not? 

 

Interesting question, but I don't think anyone is arguing that killing is intrinsically good.  The argument I hear is that certain specific acts of killing can be classified as good in some reasonable sense, and that the killing is just some incidental means to a greater good.

 

But I'm also bothered by this.  I started to watch The Book of Mormon Movie on DVD and I was greatly disturbed by the scene of Nephi and Laban, especially by the thundering divine voice saying, "I command it."  I stopped the DVD, mailed it back to Netflix, and shrugged off the LDS Church for several years after that.  Only later did I realized that the story of this killing was very consistent with some Old Testament themes and therefore seemed like an ancient story, not something that Joseph Smith would make up out of whole cloth.

 

It's a very knotty issue that exposes my own hypocrisy and double standards.  One one hand, part of me recoils in disgust at any notion of good killing.  On the other, I can think of a few people throughout history (e.g. Pol Pot) who I wouldn't mind seeing killed at all.  I've heard people compare the human and the divine to the two sides of a finely woven carpet.  One side is all knots and random threads, and the other is total beauty and order.  Or, if you prefer math, we may be interpreting human acts as two-dimensional objects only and not realizing that a third and unseen divine dimension may also be part of the picture.

[Vort]

I'm not convinced.  If killing is good, then doesn't it follow that God enjoys wiping out entire cities (or instructing His servants to behead inebriated dirtbags they find in the street)?

 

If not, why not? 

 

I didn't say that killing was good, but that that killing was good. And whether or not God enjoyed it is (1) irrelevant and (2) not likely knowable. All things that God does are good by definition.

[Vort]

But I'm also bothered by this.  I started to watch The Book of Mormon Movie on DVD and I was greatly disturbed by the scene of Nephi and Laban, especially by the thundering divine voice saying, "I command it."  I stopped the DVD, mailed it back to Netflix, and shrugged off the LDS Church for several years after that.

 

I am very sorry to hear this. After having laughed my way through the movie, I tried to convince myself that no one would take the movie at face value for LDS doctrine, but deep down I knew there would surely be people like you who would assume it to be a fair representation of LDS beliefs.

[Vort]

I dunno... I appreciate the time you've taken to explain things to me. It does seem like this is becoming sort of a word game and semantics. 

 

This is actually my point. As far as I can tell, the whole idea of an action being sinful by nature is a semantic game.

 

Or to put it another way: Any willful betrayal of God's will constitutes sin, regardless of what the action is. No honest and sincere attempt at following God's will is ever sin, regardless of what the action is. Sin does not lie in the action.

[estradling75]

Thanks for the explanation, Jane. Honestly, all the references to the old testament when God supposedly "killed" people or ordered people to be killed, isn't really connecting the dots for me very well because I believe the old testament was mostly allegory and parable.

It helps me understand where you guys are getting your rationale, but I can't really agree with it lol.

 

 

Lets take your own then.  Earilier in this thread (if my memory does not fail me) An example was given that a Catholic could have an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.  This is a case were that which is a SIN is not a sin because of the curcumstances.  Its an exception to the Abortions are always a SIN statement.  And unless I got confused it is a Catholic one.

 

Now don't get me wrong I heard and understand the reasoning.  I agree with it too.  But it shows that exception are possible even for a Catholic. 

[mrmarklin]

Wind seeker answered this question accurately with the first reply. Do we really need dozens of other replies?

[The Folk Prophet]

If killing is good, then doesn't it follow that God enjoys wiping out entire cities 

 

How does this follow? Is "good" defined by enjoyment? I think not.

[Vort]

Wind seeker answered this question accurately with the first reply. Do we really need dozens of other replies?

 

Yes.  A one-word answer is not accurate. The question is defective, and an appropriate answer requires considerable nuance.

[Claire]

Lets take your own then.  Earilier in this thread (if my memory does not fail me) An example was given that a Catholic could have an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.  This is a case were that which is a SIN is not a sin because of the curcumstances.  Its an exception to the Abortions are always a SIN statement.  And unless I got confused it is a Catholic one.

 

Now don't get me wrong I heard and understand the reasoning.  I agree with it too.  But it shows that exception are possible even for a Catholic. 

 

This is a bit of a weird situation, I'll grant that. Technically, the Church does not allow "abortions" in the case of ectopic pregnancies, in the same way as it does not allow abortions in the case of women who have to undergo chemotherapy or some other similar treatment. The child cannot be aborted preemptively, but undergoing the treatment is morally licit so long as the termination of the pregnancy is not the goal. This is known as the "principle of double effect," where an action that has a good and an evil result is judged to be okay or not okay. The three criteria required to pass the criteria are that the action me morally licit in its own right (i.e. administering treatment for cancer vs. cancer), that the evil result is not intended (i.e. you do not want to terminate the pregnancy), and the good achieved is comparable in scope to the evil endured.

Now, on the subject of sin, I think there are certain things we all agree on. First, God gave us certain commandments which should be followed, both positive actions (i.e. go to Church on Sunday) and negative actions (i.e do not steal). Next, we'd probably all agree that, in the majority of cases, disobeying these commandments is sinful, in that in contradicts the will of God. Also, we'd probably agree that an action that is normally sinful (i.e. stealing) is not sinful when God commands gives us a contradictory command (i.e. telling Nephi to steal the plates).

 

I think the bigger debate from a practical standpoint is the mode by which God may provide for an exception. In the first place, I would argue that God does not provide for exceptions to His commandments via the "still small voice" so much as he employs the "burning bush." What I mean by this is that, while he normally works in fairly subtle ways in our day to day lives, he normally makes a big blatant show of it when he commands somebody to go against one of his commandments. This is important from a practical standpoint, since otherwise you risk scandal amongst the faithful. For example, if a Mormon said that God commanded him not to follow the Word of Wisdom, or a Catholic claimed that God commanded them not to observe their Friday fasting from meat during Lent, neither Church could really recognize that supposed revelation since they have no means to verify it.

 

I would further argue that both the LDS and Catholic faiths have "burning bush" mechanisms in place. For LDS, that's the Prophet and other general authorities, who may receive special revelation in such matters. For Catholics, it's the Magisterium of Bishops guided by the Holy Spirit. The faithful of either faith can generally rely on their respective Church to grant sure guidance in such matters, since they believe that God is working in a very public way through them.

 

Now, in the cases of the original topics (contraception and abortion), the teaching of the LDS and Catholic churches disagree not on the commandment as such, but on the exceptions. Again, either should have the authority (from the perspective of their followings) to make that call. In other words, trying to figure out which is correct is going to be contingent on which Church actually is authoritative.

 

Beyond that I suppose the only issue under discussion that hasn't been broached is that of "intrinsically evil actions" or "intrinsic sins." The thing is, I think that again is based on a difference in metaphysics. Based on the arguments I've seen, I'm under the impression that LDS only judge a particular (not general) actions as sinful or not, while Catholics will actually extend that classification to events and things beyond just actions. For example, a natural death would be considered an evil in Catholic parlance, but I'm thinking it wouldn't for LDS. An intrinsic sin would then be an action that always has some defect. Abortion is intrinsically sinful or evil because it always inherently carries in it the connotation of being directed toward an innocent child, which is obviously a defect for any act of killing (which can sometimes be licit, like for killing animals). Culpability (how accountable the person was for the sin) may then be reduced due to extenuating circumstances (ignorance, fear, ect).

 

As always, if I've in some way misrepresented the LDS perspective, I look forward to correction :)

[Jane_Doe]

You are very insightful Claire.

[faith4]

Back to the OP, if this question, "is contraception immoral", had been asked prior to 1930, the answer would've been an emphatic 'yes' from every Christian denomination.  At the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglican faith was the first to allow contraception in limited circumstances.  After that, most denominations began to allow its use among married persons.

 

The only exception now, of course, is the Catholic Church.  Everyone expected the Church to also change its stance on contraception, but with the release of Humane Vitae in 1968, Pope Paul VI did not change, but rather upheld the Church's stance.  This document is now considered prophetic. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

 

For those who would like to actually read Humanae Vitae, here's a link http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

[Guest]

Back to the OP, if this question, "is contraception immoral", had been asked prior to 1930, the answer would've been an emphatic 'yes' from every Christian denomination.  At the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglican faith was the first to allow contraception in limited circumstances.  After that, most denominations began to allow its use among married persons.

 

The only exception now, of course, is the Catholic Church.  Everyone expected the Church to also change its stance on contraception, but with the release of Humane Vitae in 1968, Pope Paul VI did not change, but rather upheld the Church's stance.  This document is now considered prophetic. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

 

For those who would like to actually read Humanae Vitae, here's a link http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

Well, unless you consider LDS non-Christian... the LDS Church has not changed their views on contraception as far as I know - even before the invention of artificial means of contraception.  It has never been deemed immoral depending on the intent of why someone would prevent pregnancy... even as far back as the early 1900's, church leaders have always taught that having children should not be delayed for selfish reasons.  But, they do not say you cannot use contraception because - they also say that it's okay to use contraception for non-selfish reasons like... say, you fear you have a genetic defect that will cause injury to the offspring.

Edited January 19, 2015 by anatess

[Claire]

Well, unless you consider LDS non-Christian... the LDS Church has not changed their views on contraception as far as I know - even before the invention of artificial means of contraception.  It has never been deemed immoral depending on the intent of why someone would prevent pregnancy... even as far back as the early 1900's, church leaders have always taught that having children should not be delayed for selfish reasons.  But, they do not say you cannot use contraception because - they also say that it's okay to use contraception for non-selfish reasons like... say, you fear you have a genetic defect that will cause injury to the offspring.

 

It's a little complicated when talking about LDS, since you guys basically took the great apostasy off :)

 

Most churches share in common teachings from the first 1000-1500 years of the Church, meaning that any condemnation of artificial contraception during that period would pretty much be held by every major Christian denomination. Likewise, any reference to "contraception" by those churches after the split would have referred to artificial means since that's what they historically meant by it.

 

Early LDS teachings which predate the 30's aren't necessarily specific about whether they mean contraception in the "artificial means" sense or in the sense they currently employ. Frankly, it's sort of a mute point. It's impossible to prove from the writings alone whether a reversal occurred or not, and it has little to no bearing on what is meant by it now.

 

Again, merely my take on it. If any LDS have some specific writings that I missed in my cursory Google search, I'd love to see them :)

[faith4]

Well, unless you consider LDS non-Christian... the LDS Church has not changed their views on contraception as far as I know - even before the invention of artificial means of contraception.  It has never been deemed immoral depending on the intent of why someone would prevent pregnancy... even as far back as the early 1900's, church leaders have always taught that having children should not be delayed for selfish reasons.  But, they do not say you cannot use contraception because - they also say that it's okay to use contraception for non-selfish reasons like... say, you fear you have a genetic defect that will cause injury to the offspring.

 

I don't know, even a cursory search of this topic brings up several quotes from prominent members (prophets etc) in your church denouncing contraception and limiting the size of families, which is against the command of God to multiply and replenish the earth.  Planning a family in and of itself is not immoral, that is something both churches agree on, it's just the method of how that planning goes about.  The Catholic Church does not teach it's immoral to responsibly plan your family, like your church, using natural methods.  My husband and I have been married 11 years and have 4 children.  We aren't considered immoral for not having 8 children by now, and we choose to use NFP to plan when we are ready to have our children, and this is right in line with Catholic teaching, and most likely with yours as well.   

 

Here are some quotes that I've found, though they are out of context, they seem pretty clear on the subject.  Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what these men are saying.  

 

 

“The Church has always advised against birth control and that is the only position the Church can take in view of our beliefs with respect to the eternity of the marriage covenant and the purpose of this divine relationship.”

- Apostle Hugh B. Brown, The Way of the Master, pp. 114

 

“[W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God's divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God's retribution, for God will not be mocked.”

- Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63

 

“Presidents of Stakes, Bishops of Wards, and Presidents of Missions

Dear Brethren:

The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement:

We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.

However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.

It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.”

- First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 14, 1969

 

“The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.”

- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1969, p. 12

[Guest]

I don't know, even a cursory search of this topic brings up several quotes from prominent members (prophets etc) in your church denouncing contraception and limiting the size of families, which is against the command of God to multiply and replenish the earth.  Planning a family in and of itself is not immoral, that is something both churches agree on, it's just the method of how that planning goes about.  The Catholic Church does not teach it's immoral to responsibly plan your family, like your church, using natural methods.  My husband and I have been married 11 years and have 4 children.  We aren't considered immoral for not having 8 children by now, and we choose to use NFP to plan when we are ready to have our children, and this is right in line with Catholic teaching, and most likely with yours as well.   

 

Here are some quotes that I've found, though they are out of context, they seem pretty clear on the subject.  Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what these men are saying.  

 

 

“The Church has always advised against birth control and that is the only position the Church can take in view of our beliefs with respect to the eternity of the marriage covenant and the purpose of this divine relationship.”

- Apostle Hugh B. Brown, The Way of the Master, pp. 114

 

“[W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God's divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God's retribution, for God will not be mocked.”

- Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63

 

“Presidents of Stakes, Bishops of Wards, and Presidents of Missions

Dear Brethren:

The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement:

We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.

Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.

However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.

It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.”

- First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 14, 1969

 

“The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.”

- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1969, p. 12

 

 

Like I said... the teaching has not changed...

 

Refer to our discussion on Catholic versus LDS view of "sin"...

 

... wait... it might be on the other LDS/Catholic thread, I can't remember anymore.

[FunkyTown]

I'm not convinced.  If killing is good, then doesn't it follow that God enjoys wiping out entire cities (or instructing His servants to behead inebriated dirtbags they find in the street)?

 

If not, why not? 

 

 

He enjoys the results of it - That entire nations do not dwindle in disbelief.

 

Saying that he enjoys the act is akin to telling a cancer sufferer they must enjoy having chemotherapy as they think the chemotherapy is good.

[Guest]

On Catholicism and Exceptions to Abortion:

 

Catholicism believes Abortion is a sin - WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

 

But, but, but... isn't ectopic pregnancies an Exception?

 

No, it is not.

 

To make this a very black and white simple explanation... I'll have to put a highly charged example below:

 

Say a mother and her child were jumping out of a burning airplane without a parachute.  Both of them are falling and they are both going to die.  As they are falling, the mother saw within her reach a parachute.  She tried to get the parachute close to her child but it was impossible.  She couldn't do it.  So she grabbed the parachute and lived, the child died.

 

That is not an abortion.  That is a death by circumstance.

[estradling75]

On Catholicism and Exceptions to Abortion:

 

Catholicism believes Abortion is a sin - WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

 

But, but, but... isn't ectopic pregnancies an Exception?

 

No, it is not.

 

To make this a very black and white simple explanation... I'll have to put a highly charged example below:

 

Say a mother and her child were jumping out of a burning airplane without a parachute.  Both of them are falling and they are both going to die.  As they are falling, the mother saw within her reach a parachute.  She tried to get the parachute close to her child but it was impossible.  She couldn't do it.  So she grabbed the parachute and lived, the child died.

 

That is not an abortion.  That is a death by circumstance.

 

 

It is wordplay...  You are changing the definition of Abortion from the willful Termination of a Pregnancy.   To willful Termination of a Pregnancy except in the case of ectopic pregnancies.  Don't get me wrong, I agree that it needs to be done, but this whole thread is about trying to find and agree to overarching ideals or rules.

 

Now it seems to me that the Catholic stance is based on the idea that pregnancies are a result of God's will. And that attempting to thwart God's will is a sin.  Instead we should be willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to fulfill God's will for us. That sounds really good.

 

But then continuing on the Catholic line of reasoning we are required to say in case of ectopic pregnancies that it wasn't God's will.  That all other pregnancies are valid but that ectopic pregnancies some how got past God.  That no matter what ever hardship a pregnancy might bring (including the chance of death) the mom-to-be needs to tough it out.  Except ectopic pregnancies.  On that one we can clearly move to save the life of the mother.  That seems to be a solid about face on the matter (which we would expect from an exception) 

 

With this clearly outlined for Catholics it seems a bit hypocritical for them to call the LDS stance on abortion for babies that are not likely to survive, or the mothers life being in danger wrong with their reasoning reaching the same point if by another path.   

[Guest]

It is wordplay...  You are changing the definition of Abortion from the willful Termination of a Pregnancy.   To willful Termination of a Pregnancy except in the case of ectopic pregnancies. 

 

No, it isn't.  Because, there is not nothing WILLFUL about not being able to give the kid the doggone parachute.  If there was even a slight change that the mother could have hung on to the kid while she hangs on to the parachute and she didn't choose to do it, then yeah, that would be willful termination.

Edited January 20, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

No, it isn't.  Because, there is not nothing WILLFUL about not being able to give the kid the doggone parachute.

 

But there is something willful about terminating an ectopic pregnancy. I believe that is estradling's point.

[Guest]

But there is something willful about terminating an ectopic pregnancy. I believe that is estradling's point.

 

Well, if you insist that not giving the kid a parachute is willful, then I guess it's willful.  But, for me, when there's no choice, there's no will.  You didn't choose to not give the parachute.  It is simply that you can't.  I guess, there's always the choice of not grabbing the parachute either - so the mother dies herself.  But, that has nothing to do with giving the kid the parachute.

 

By the way, this doesn't just apply to ectopic pregnancies.  This applies to any situation where there is only one possible outcome - the baby dies - regardless of what you do.

 

This is different than the either-or case when the mother's life is in peril... where either the mother or the child can reach for the parachute - but the parachute can only carry one person.  That's a completely different discussion.

Edited January 20, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

But there is something willful about terminating an ectopic pregnancy. I believe that is estradling's point.

 

 

It was...  I read Anatess analogy but didn't think it works the same.  In both cases the mother and child will die unless something is done.  In the both cases nothing can be done to save the child.  In the case of the pregnancy the mother speeds up the death of the child to save her own life.  In the case of the parachute the child dies as the circumstance dictate but the mother saves herself.  Big difference, given that we are trying to agree to some overarching rule.

 

Please note that I am not criticizing the Catholic position on abortion... I am criticizing, the Catholic criticism of the LDS position. (it is admittedly a fine distinction)