Bad Catholic: It’s Ok to Wear a Condom… Just Not During Sex

I love listening to Catholics explain why condoms are evil because their rationale is so out-of-your-mind ridiculous that they’re just begging people not to take them seriously. Like Marc Barnes at Bad Catholic (and 1Flesh):

We know that contraception works against the nature of love, which is total and life-giving, and thus violates the natural law. We can quite easily point out the damage the widespread embrace of contraception has done to our culture, to our perception of new life, to man’s view of woman, to our health, our relationships, our families, and our environment. But in our understanding of the evil of the act (an evil which I believe most couples are not entirely culpable for in this age of falsehood) we often mischaracterize the tool as evil. We think, “condoms are bad, always bad!

They’re not. Let’s establish our first premise as this, that contraception is the moral evil, and the contraceptive is merely a tool to that end. In fact, and forgive me for some necessary crudeness, the only time the condom allows us to perform this immoral function is at the moment of male orgasm. So we should feel free to wear condoms. We should feel free to wear four or five of them. Just not during sex.

At least Barnes says it might be permissible to use a condom if you or your partner has AIDS. Even then, he has to spend paragraphs rationalizing this incredibly simple decision.

It’s amazing to me that this is an issue at all.

If you don’t want children, then use contraception.

If you want to minimize your chance of getting a disease, then use contraception a condom.

If you’re not monogamous, then use contraception.

If you’re having sex and you want to protect yourself, then use contraception.

Look at how easy that is.

Life is so much better when the Pope isn’t your sex ed teacher.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    Why stop at four or five condoms?  Normal when I leave the house not to have sex, I wear 40 or 50.  They make an excellent raincoat.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Reed/692599362 Paul Reed

       Great idea! But keep in mind that condom-raincoats only keep you dry, like, 97% of the time.

      ( http://youtu.be/VZmwEgK2AEA )

  • observer

    Stupid question: Haven’t these people ever thought that sex/reproductive organs isn’t merely for reproduction?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Felix-Hoefert/1034053621 Felix Hoefert

      They’re not supposed to think but obey a book.

      • observer

        Good point.

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        Not even a book, but whatever a bunch of old men wrote down long after the founding of their religion.

    • Stev84

       No. That’s the whole reason for their idiotic point of view

    • Liberated Liberal

      They do.  According to Catholic … Doctrine?  Law?  Rules? Not sure how you would classify it, sex has to be every single time three things:

      1) Marital
      2) Procreative
      3) Unitive

      Eliminate any one of those three things, and sex becomes a mortal sin.  Which is fine, I guess.  I’m not going to argue their stance against contraception if they really don’t want to use it.  What I will never understand is how they argue that using NFP somehow erases the fact that they’re not having procreative sex.  Having sex in a way that ensures they don’t get pregnant is taking away the procreative nature of sex.  But NFP is fine.  Condoms “during sex” is EVIL.  PURE EVIL.

       

  • http://exconvert.blogspot.com/ Kacy

    I love his first paragraph because it’s such a textbook example of the ecological fallacy.  Correlation does not imply causation.

    Oh, and he also forgot to talk about how many people have been hurt by the Catholic teaching against contraception.  I think there is more of a direct link to human suffering as a result of Catholic policies blocking funds to womens’ health programs than there is to health problems caused by condoms.

    • Jacobhghs43

      Source?

      • http://exconvert.blogspot.com/ Kacy

        How about one from recent news:

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/population/la-fg-population-matters5-20120729-html,0,5897961.htmlstory

        Actually, I’m thinking about collecting various stories and articles on women hurt by the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception.  So many Catholics view the anti-contraception teaching with rose-colored glasses that it would be worth having a list of internet resources available regarding how real women are harmed by this stance.

        • Jacobhghs43

          That is honestly one of the most biased, emotional-appealing articles I have ever read.

          • yemangycoyote

            And you’re presumably quite religious, so that’s really saying something.

            I think what you meant was “The content of that article conflicted with my prior notions of how the world works, and rather than considering, even for a moment, that the church’s anti-contraception stance might have negative consequences, I’ll make a blanket dismissal of the entire thing to avoid any cognitive dissonance.”

        • ariofrio

          Kacy, that would be great. That particular case is heart-wrenching.

          However, I don’t think Catholic teaching is the only culprit.If safe abortions and contraceptives weren’t available, and a woman doesn’t want to have a child, why would she choose to have sex? She either (1) was uninformed, (2) didn’t think it through, or (3) was forced.Educating the masses would presumably fix (1) and (2) and persecuting rapists (including psychological rapists) would fix (3). Furthermore, Catholic teaching: - supports education (“The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.” CCC 2221)- and condemns rape (“Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act.” CCC 2356).

          In other words, Catholic teaching is wholly consistent with a world in which women do not suffer in these ways.

          CCC: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm 

          • http://exconvert.blogspot.com/ Kacy

             I’m not sure what you are getting at here.  The case I cited in the Philipines has nothing to do with rape or lack of education.  (The woman knows that babies come through sex and wants condoms.)  Also, the RCC’s dogma against contraception is the reason cited for Filipino women being denied access to reproductive technologies.

            I am well aware of what the Catholic Church teaches.  Thank you.  I converted to the Catholic faith in 2007 before seeing the error of my ways and leaving the RCC. 

            Since writing this post, I have created a list of links on how the RCC’s stance against birth control hurts women, even their own who faithfully use NFP. 

            More information can be found here:

            http://exconvert.blogspot.com/p/anti-contraception-hurts-women.html

            • ariofrio

              Thank you. I read the first of your articles, and I definitely don’t know what she could do to fight depression as well as remain faithful to Catholic teaching. I know way too little about her to suggest anything. I don’t even know what kinds of prayer are most helpful to people battling with depression.

              What follows might be blunt, but I hope it is clear and accurate. Do you think that the CC teaching is harmful? That’s what I’m arguing against.

              If Filipino women have education and are not raped, why do they choose to have sex, when most likely they will get pregnant and have no safe way to stop it? It’s as if I got a car (for good reasons: I need it to visit my parents, get groceries, etc.) but couldn’t afford it. Silly.
              Is there another reason why Filipino women get pregnant in a society where contraception is hard to get? If not, then they must either lack education or be the victims of rape. And the CC is against those. That’s what I was getting at.PS: Sorry if I insulted your intelligence! I was trying to back up my claims. :)

              • http://exconvert.blogspot.com/ Kacy

                 ”Do you think that the CC teaching is harmful?”

                I think the teaching against contraception is harmful.  I do not think being pro-education and teaching against rape is harmful.  Not all religious teachings are harmful, but even the ones that are not harmful can be tainted due to the harmful ones.

                For example your statement:

                “Is there another reason why Filipino women get pregnant in a society
                where contraception is hard to get? If not, then they must either lack
                education or be the victims of rape.”

                is completely reductionist and harmful.  You take the positive teachings (pro-education and anti-rape) and use them to justify your heinous teaching (anti-contraception).

                • ariofrio

                  “Do you think that the CC teaching is harmful?” I meant, specifically, the contraception teaching.
                  You say my comments about the cause of unwanted pregnancies are “completely reductionist and harmful.” But you don’t explain how they are reductionist. I think you mean that I’m not considering enough factors. What are other factors involved? I’m trying to find other factors.

                  Also, I’m not saying that just because the Church has some good teachings, then all Church teachings must be good. I am arguing that in this particular case, the Church provides good, alternative ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies. I argue that the “heinous teaching” is not, in fact, heinous, because it doesn’t have to lead to the suffering it has so far.

  • The Captain

    “contraception works against the nature of love, which is total and life-giving, and thus violates the natural law” 

    I just want to point out that this sentence is utter bullshit gobbledygook.

    It would seem that Marc Barnes is the Deepak Chopra of condom use.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      I’m stealing utter bullshit gobbledygook.

  • schnauzermom

    Well, isn’t there that fish in some tropical rivers that swims up your penis and has all those nasty barbs and causes some really unpleasant things to happen to you? Maybe wearing a condom when swimming in a tropical river is the REAL reason the Divine Creator of the Universe allowed condoms to be made!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      River Monsters mentioned that fish during an episode. They even interviewed a man who had it happen to him. My penis cringed listing to him recite the story.

    • kraken17

      I first heard

    • Jonathan

       Haha, funny joke.  It’s called free will, not God’s will.  We choose of our own free will as to whether we conform ourselves to God’s will.  The existence of condoms is beside the point.  10 4

      Also, the Church is not going to prevent you from using condoms.  It’s just going to tell you the consequences of engaging in contraceptive “sex.”  The Church will not illegalize contraceptives, even if it could, but it will never support contraceptive use for “sex” either.

      The Church’s theology on sex doesn’t really concern you if you don’t wish to be an adherent.  And yes, the Church forbids adherents from using contraceptives.  Being the religious institution that it is, the Church has no need to threaten punishment.  The act ipso facto [in itself; by the fact], elicits consequences that will sanction punishment for us.

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        What’s with the scare quotes? Sex suddenly becomes “sex” if a condom is involved?

        The Church will not illegalize contraceptives, even if it could

        Ah, I wish I could believe that! Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. Take a look at Ireland, for example.

  • jdm8

    Does this whole business about being against contraception originate from the story of Onan?

  • Guest

    I think it takes a bit of humor to catch that he was making a humorous point to illustrate the false characterization of his position.  The point being that condoms in themselves are not evil, but the way of using them makes them so.  Put it another way, a gun is not itself evil, but in that case how you use it makes it so.  If I get Catholic teaching correctly, it’s that the use of the condom is basically trying to play God with life, so to speak, to get the bang without paying the buck.  It’s actually a very consistent ethic regarding human life.  I can understand complaints about it, particularly in light of medical advancements.  But I think this looks more like a rush to take a point out of context, rather than dealing with the meat of the argument at hand. 

    Oh, and everyone knows condoms aren’t a guarantee against having children or getting any type of disease.  That’s like saying we can reduce the effects of drinking and driving by this or that method.  Nope.  The only sure way is to not drink and drive.  No birth control works all the time, and that legendary 1%, let’s not forget, is a pretty big number when you consider the lives involved.

    • allein

      “the way of using them makes them so”

      You mean for their intended purpose?

      No one is saying they are 100% guarantee, but they’re a hell of a lot better than 0%.

      • Guest

        No, I was saying that was his point.  I’m shocked that folks have missed a far greater target on down in the post.  That’s what I mean.  Agree or disagree, this point was valid based upon the teaching.  What was a shock to read was in other parts of the post, and quite frankly, it shines a light on a growing problem in some Catholic apologetic circles.  But, focus on this is we must I guess.

        • Moggie

          Having read the whole post, I fail to see a greater target than Bad Catholic’s advocacy of a position which is regressive, unrealistic and dangerous, i.e. that contraception = bad.  How can a point be valid if the teaching it is based on is so obviously, ridiculously, dangerously wrong?

          So what was the bit that shocked you – BC being rude about journalists?

    • Glasofruix

      This post has so much bullcrap in it it’s hard to move around…

      • Guest

        You mean Bad Catholic’s?   I’m shocked people here are missing the really, really big topic that could be focused on. 

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          No one’s missing it. We know his point is that contraception (not the contraceptive) is evil. I pointed this out in my comments. What is there to talk about, except to say how ludicrous and immoral it is to demand that married couples desire bioogical children, and if they don’t, to call them evil.

        • Glasofruix

          No, i mean yours…

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      But I think this looks more like a rush to take a point out of context, rather than dealing with the meat of the argument at hand.

       

      The meat of the argument is ridiculous, though. What they’re saying is that not wanting children is evil. That it’s not morally acceptable to be a married couple that doesn’t want biological offspring. Not all people want to have children, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There is absolutely no reason (aside from religious lunacy) that couples shouldn’t be able to have sex without fearing that they will have to bring an unwanted child into the world.

      • Girl

        Where does he say that “not wanting children is evil”? He does not say this!

        To address other things you say … In the Catholic worldview there is a God who might have better plans for you than what you want at one time or another. It might sound harsh but think about it from the point of view of a Catholic who believes in a benevolent God. I don’t know any parents who don’t think that their children aren’t the best thing that ever happened to them.

        If it’s really not right for a couple to have children, it’s not as though they are condemned to have them. There’s such a thing as Natural Family Planning (can be googled.)But I think it has to be stressed that if you engage in sex, children are always a possibility, contraception or no, natural family planning or no. There’s no 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy except not having sex at all, and this must be accepted.ps – sorry about the italics, I don’t know where they came from and couldn’t get them off!

        • Girl

          (ok there are no italics sorry again.)

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          He states that contraception is a moral evil. He believes it is evil to use contraception to prevent pregnancy. I understand that the Catholic view is that couples must be open to having biological children. They must want to have those children. If they do not want them and take certain steps to prevent them, then they are “sinning” in some way.

          Regarding the Catholic worldview, I think it is immoral to demand that couples be open to having children. Not all people want children. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be a parent. People should not feel forced or pressured into having children that they do not want. It’s better for children when they are born or adopted to parents who truly want them.

          And, yes, there are 100% effective ways of preventing pregnancy. If a couple is careful and stringent with their birth control methods, it is absolutely possible to prevent pregnancy. And if that fails, there is also abortion. Consenting is sex is not consenting to pregnancy, and consenting to pregnancy is not consenting to parenthood. Luckily for people living in the modern world who value making sure every child is planned and wanted, children are not an inevitable outcome of sex.

          Obviously, I don’t believe your god is real, so I don’t believe it wants anything or demands anything of people. I think it is ridiculous not to use birth control, and NFP seems like religious mania, a method for fundamentalists who are frantically, desperately trying to skirt the rules. As I’ve said elsewhere, if fundie Catholics were really serious about being open to pregnancy every time they have sex, they would be Quiverfullers.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/47IDX2QAR6VU6ZAILFU6I23ACQ Joseph

      I am constantly amazed and amused by the logical contortions people make to justify what is so obviously a ludicrous argument.  It’s a pretty simple matter, really. 

      William of Occam is rolling in his grave.

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      “No birth control works all the time…”

      Categorically bullshit. Men who have properly done vasectomies can’t make babies. Which is great, because they can get their freak on with their partners and not worry about how sacred every sperm is.

      • Guest

        So you don’t let little things like medical science and actual studies get in the way of what you call bullshit. How brilliant. If you are going to refute something, make sure you’re not using ignorance – willful or otherwise – as your main ammo.

        • Patterrssonn

          So what you’re saying is that since nothing in medical science is guaranteed foolproof we should abandon it in favour of religious woo.

        • Liberated Liberal

          Antibiotics don’t work 100% of the time, either.  In order to be consistent, and making sure you aren’t ‘playing god’ by interfering with his plan (i.e., that you have a devastating infection), I suggest you not ever, ever use antibiotics again.  

          And before you tell me that I’m stupid and what I said is ludicrous, how is ‘playing god’ by using a condom any different than ‘playing god’ by using an antibiotic.  In either way, you are interfering with “nature” and biology in order to avoid certain outcomes.  

          • MichelleMarie

            A disease is a negative thing, and therefore, anything that treats it is a good thing, even if it doesn’t work 100% of the time.

            A person is a good thing. A person is not a disease. Fertility is not a disease. The possibility of life is always a positive thing. Full stop. Life equals hope, it equals potential. When you get pregnant, you don’t get pregnant with a disease, but a person who can grow into a functioning, loving adult – but only if his or her existence is acknowledged and embraced with full joy and acceptance FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. A person is capable of a lot of evil, but also of a lot of good, and we never know a person’s full future. Forecasting that someone’s life will be worthless and therefore should be terminated is just about as “rational” and “scientific” your local psychic reading tarot cards, or the 8 ball sitting on your desk.

            If we don’t value life and the raw hope and potential it brings, we get (and have) the “maybe you should never have been born” mentality. Which is in  full swing among my peers – looking at others with the selective eye of a eugenicist.

            So, really, REALLY imperfect metaphor, there.

            • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

              Not everyone wants children. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a fantasy to insist that every pregnant woman greet her unplanned pregnancy with “full joy and acceptance.” That just doesn’t happen, and I see no problem with it.

              Once again, religious people are looking at things in such a self-centered way, insisting on making their existence the center of the universe. If a hundred things had been different, you wouldn’t have been born. I wouldn’t have been born. And if we hadn’t been, neither of us would be complaining about it. 

      • kraken17

        Look up recanalization of the vasa deferentia. Basically you’re saying that if everything goes perfectly and nothing unexpected happens, ever, you’ll be fine. Good luck with that in reality.

      • MichelleMarie

         Lol, except it’s not bullshit. http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071010185321AA5QMPJ

        There is no such thing as unlimited sex without consequences, my friend.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Felix-Hoefert/1034053621 Felix Hoefert


      It’s actually a very consistent ethic regarding human life.”
      But it’s invalid because their concept of human life is incoherent.

      • Guest

        If only failsafe,  sure ways when no other option is possible.  It would seem that many who do not hold to such views of life actually hold to yours: best way to avoid poverty, unwanted children, troubled youth: abort them.  But that’s obviously not the point.  One does not have to drink and drive, and despite all claims to the contrary, we don’t have to have sex.  It isn’t like breathing or eating.  When we choose to, according to the birth control/safe sex view, we are ensuring that someone must take their place at the 1% table.  And, let’s be honest, we are betting the farm on the hope that it won’t be us, or anyone we care about.  We are betting everything on the fact that it will be someone we don’t know.  If you were told go ahead, but I guarantee you that you will be the 1%, would you go ahead anyway?  That is the question.

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          So if a married couple doesn’t want children, they should never have sex?

          • pagansister

             Anna!   You hit the nail on the head—if you are married and don’t want children, do not have intercourse.  WAIT!  You have to “do it” at least one time—at the proper time of month (HFP) just to consummate the marriage, if the marriage was in THE Church, RCC.  However, if you were actually married in another faith, perhaps it isn’t a requirement to consummate, right?   I ‘m kidding here—if you’re married, (or not) have sex anyhow and use all those really bad prevention methods.  Duh! 

          • Gawd

             That is EXACTLY the attitude Mother Church. That’s what “Will you accept children lovingly from God,…?” means at a catholic wedding. If you fuck, you’d better accept the consequences of your unprotected lust. That’s why catholic families 100 years ago had a dozen or more kids, most of whom died in infancy. That’s also why the modern catholic couple says this (and the fat idiot Marc Barnes) is nuts… “Bring on the contraception.”

    • onamission5

      Drinking and driving is illegal. Having sex isn’t. False equivalency.

      Other ways that DUI isn’t like healthy, consensual sexual relationships: There’s no safer way to drink and drive, there’s no way to get consent from the people you might run over, and oh yeah, it’s not forbidden in the bible so I guess that makes it okay.

      I’ll take a 97-99% chance of success with contraception over a 100% chance of never having sex again any day, or never having any control over what does or does not happen to my body, thanks.  

      • Guest

        And if we were talking about what is and isn’t legal vs. what is and isn’t the basis for an act being valid or safe, then you would have me.   Oh, and yes there can be safer ways to drink and drive, just not safe ways.  And as far as 97%, that’s all fine and dandy.  But there’s a 100% chance that someone always has to be in that 1-3%.  Are you willing for that to be you?  Or are you content knowing that it will have to be someone else?

        • onamission5

          I am the 3%. Twice. I’m still okay with it. Snide guilting attempt fail on your part.

          Unlike the catholic church I don’t expect other people to bear the real life consequencs of my opinons for me. Other people do what’s good for them, whatever their given circumstances, I do what’s right for me and mine.

        • Mogg

          That would be called “risk analysis”, something we all do every day.  Every time I get in a car and drive I accept the non-zero risk of being injured or killed in a smash, but the benefits of my being able to use a car far outweigh the risk, so I drive.  Of course I am accepting of the knowledge that the rare failure of contraception could happen to me.  As with driving, the benefits far outweigh the risks, and like the consequences of a car smash many of the consequences of contraceptive (or physical barrier contraceptives used for disease prevention) are often easily dealt with even if they do occur.  In a car smash by far the more common consequence is that I am uninjured and only have to deal with the inconvenience of dealing with getting my car repaired.  Should barrier contraception fail there are ways of treating the vast majority of STD’s and even, if necessary, ways of preventing a viable pregnancy should I not wish for one.  Sure, it’s better to avoid the car smash/contraceptive failure, but avoiding driving or not having sex is an incredibly extreme avoidance method that makes life far less enjoyable, convenient and practical.

          Surely that teaching, in order to be fully consistent, would also involve Catholics not using any form of un-natural device in any part of their lives.  That would include medicine, farmed food, clothing, housing and so on – they should accept what God sends them, whether it be children or disease or starvation or freezing or dehydration.

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          You do know that it’s possible to double down on contraception, right? You can get the chance of pregnancy down to near zero if you use more than one method.

  • Conspirator

    I have one quibble with your statements Hemant.  Specifically “If you want to minimize your chance of getting a disease, then use contraception.”  

    Now perhaps I have a misunderstanding of the terminology, but isn’t the pill considered a contraceptive?  Only certain forms of contraception, specifically condoms and other physical barriers, provide protection against STDs.  In order not to play into the hands of idiots like Marc Barnes you don’t want to provide inaccurate information on the subject.

    • allein

      I was thinking the same thing. That line should probably be rephrased. (Though technically speaking, the pill does minimize the risk of some diseases, but in this context I’m not sure that’s relevant.)

    • Hemant

      You’re right. I amended the sentence.

  • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

    It’s just…insane. In their worldview, not wanting to get pregnant is evil. Not wanting to have children is evil. Thank goodness most Catholics in the real world aren’t like this.

    • Glasofruix

      Wanting to have sex seems to be evil too…

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        Well, it seems to be okay for heterosexual married couples, but only as long as they’re not closed to the possibility of pregnancy. Anything else is unacceptable.

    • http://twitter.com/DominicCooray Dominic Cooray

      Nope that’s not the Catholic worldview at all. You should read the Catholic argument more carefully before concluding that it’s insane otherwise there’s no dialogue, just useless chatter.

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        Marc Barnes believes that artificial contraception is evil. The Catholic church think it’s a moral evil for a couple to have sex without allowing for the possibility of pregnancy. I’m not misinterpreting that. I understand perfectly well, and I consider it insane. Just because the hierarchy of the Catholic church invents a rule, that doesn’t mean that anyone is obligated to take it seriously.

      • Jonathan

         Catholics discuss, but do NOT dialogue.  Dialogue is for the diabolical, not for the faithful.  Use the word again and I swear….

        “Catholics” these days.  :|

  • Raavynn

    I just want to know what the hell else you’d use them for. I’m confused. lol.

    • MargueriteF

      Everyone knows that they make good water balloons. I am personally extremely relieved to know that I can use them for this reason without going to hell. I’ve lain awake many nights worrying about this. Really.

      • Raavynn

        Pretty expensive water balloons, I’d say.

        • jdm8

          Someone replied to a previous thread on the discussion of 1Flesh here and said (paraphrasing) “whouldn’t it be great if condoms weren’t used for sex”, to which I replied (paraphrasing) what other use for it, they’re made for a specific use, there are better ways to do those other things.

  • http://therecoveringcatholic.wordpress.com/ Georgina

    I actually tortured myself by reading several of their “articles” and it just upsets me so much that this crap is the advice that they’re providing. All the science is either crap from religious institutions or selectively read existing peer-reviewed one off studies. I mean really. Blind them with science is just not a good approach if your science is so terrible! 

  • Baby_Raptor

    I have to argue with him. 

    To me, one of the big reasons to use birth control is respect. Respect for yourself. Respect for your partner. Respect for the fetus that will develop into life you may or may not be ready to raise. 

    I don’t agree that love is necessary for sex. I don’t agree that sex should be confined to marriage, or to progeny producing. And that’s the control he’s trying to exert over people here. He’s trying to make people fear something they do naturally. 

    It’s sick. 

    Edit: Also, speaking as a woman, I much prefer the “horrible” view that birth control has given men of me than the view that the Church teaches where I’m a baby making machine and property of a man.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      Get of the internet and go make me a sandwich woman.

      Yes, I’m joking.

      • Baby_Raptor

        *walks back to the kitchen, sniffing*

        (Also joking)

    • Sarah E

      The Church doesn’t teach that… Argue and disagree all you want, but don’t misrepresent a position. It’s why our country is so polarized. Read instead (this is not an argument for why you should agree with us, but an explanation of what we believe so that you can stop misrepresenting it): (encyclicals always start off with the heavy theology stuff, so read the whole thing) 
      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

      • Scott_In_OH

        The apostolic letter to which you link is about the role of women, rather than about sex or birth control, so I’m not sure it addresses Baby_Raptor’s point directly.

        Still, it states pretty clearly that women’s highest function is as a mother (or as a “virgin for the Kingdom”–Mary was exceptional in that she was able to be both a mother and a virgin), so I don’t see anything in there that contradicts Baby_Raptor.

    • Jacobhghs43

      I would advise you to study simple biology. You ARE a baby making machine. Biologically speaking, it’s what separates you from men. It’s actually pretty awesome.   (Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/387/) 

      • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

        The problem is viewing women as baby making machines. Insisting that all women must want to have babies, and if they don’t, saying that there is something wrong with them. People are so much more than their ability (or inability) to conceive.

        • Catherine

          If that was the only way the Church views women then how do you rationalize the Church’s great tradition and approval for those called to the celibate life as a Religious (priest, monk, nun, consecrated virgin, etc.).  The Catholic church sees nothing wrong with these vocations–in fact this lifestyle is encouraged; ironically, it is usually non-Catholics who have issues with them.

          The female body and spirit is loved and cherished for all of it’s holy abilities.

          • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

            No, actually it isn’t. You’re either a virgin, a mother, or a whore. If you’re not a married heterosexual woman willing to procreate with her husband, then the only acceptable alternative is to be a celibate nun. There is no respect for women’s sexuality in this religion, just control, and guilt and shame for those who dare to break the rules.

            • JRM

              Couldn’t we turn this around and say “If you’re not a married heterosexual man willing to procreate with his wife, then the only acceptable alternative is to be a celibate priest or brother? There’s no respect for men’s sexuality in this religion…”

              I must argue that the Catholic Church has so much respect for sexuality that it insists on the fullness of love to complete it. 

              The Catholic Church may love you more than you know: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html 

              • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

                The Catholic church is horrible with sexuality all around. I’m sure their teachings can have just as bad an effect on men as on women. But of course women bear the brunt of their anti-contraception activities, since women are the ones who get pregnant, the ones who are often forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and the ones who are left to raise the resulting children.

                As for the Catholic church’s “love,” they can love me all they want, as long as they keep their nose out of my life and their laws off my body. I think their belief system is poisonous, and I’d thank them to stay out of my government and far away from me and my family.

  • Reason_Being

    The first paragraph you quote is mind-numbing… “We know that contraception works against the nature of love”—What?  Contraception ruins love?  I would love to see his justification for that gem. “We can quite easily point out the damage the widespread embrace of contraception has done to our culture”…again What?  Yes tons of damage like preventing unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease, empowering women, etc…How can he possible ignore those colossal benefits to contraception? 

    Lastly, I am curious for what reason he would suggest people wear condoms if they are to not wear them during sex.  Does he randomly walk around wearing one? 

    • Baby_Raptor

      Those aren’t benefits to him. 

      He sees forced pregnancy, disease as punishment and women as property as features, not bugs. 

      • Reason_Being

         Well said

    • mobathome
      • jdm8

        What, exactly does that prove? It doesn’t appear to prove (or even argue) that the use of condoms, The Pill, etc. are a sin. To restate, the existence of side effects is not a sin.

        • Aacordate

           I believe his response was to the question of what harms not how to justify contraception is a sin.

      • Sam

        If sperm were an antidepressant (the 3rd article) everyone (including men) should be stirring it into their cereal. SICK.

    • http://twitter.com/DominicCooray Dominic Cooray

      It’s ‘mind-numbing’ because once you read it your mind freezes, you run back to your talking point that ‘Catholics are insane and their teaching on contraception is a joke’. You refuse to ask yourself what that paragraph means, refuse to see sources outside of your own world-view. If you did, you might still disagree, but you wouldn’t mock, your mind wouldn’t be left so numb.

      Just in case you’re willing to un-numb your mind, here’s one example of some harms that contraception has led to – just the social harms, not the health risks:
      http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm 

      You might disagree, but at least be honest and consider the opposing view in some depth first.

    • Jonathan

       ”I would love to see his justification for that gem.”
      This statement is very telling that you have a four year olds understanding of love with an infantile and gross misunderstanding of human sexuality.  Ouch, was that too offensive for you?  I am not finished.  ><

      We all know why people who support contraceptives also promote abortion.  Due to the set-in failure rate of condoms.  I will not bother explaining to you the scale of a sperm relative to the structure of the condom at that dimension.  That will involve too much detail for this post.  Reminder: factories will always produce products that are defective on about a 5%+ margin.  The problem with a condom is that you can't detect those deficiencies.  In other words, condoms are no guarantee of "sex" without consequence.  You take a risk every time.  If you engage in sex enough, you will beget offspring, regardless of the protection you use.  So, not wanting the child that solution society provides is abortion, and even infanticide where abortifacients fail.

      How does this empower woman?  Explain that please?  There is no femininity in what these so called woman do.  They who do this are females, not women.  And females only have physiological differences to males.  10 4

      "Benefits" of Contraceptives
      -Global Population Collapse
      -Global Economic Collapse as a result of Global Population Collapse, aka Disruption of the Human Cycle, aka WHERE ARE ALL THE CHILDREN?  THERE ARE NONE!  [Or, not nearly enough to replace the older generation in the economy = Contraction of Economic Demand on a Global Scale]
      -Disrespect toward women on an unheard of scale, aka rape and abuse.
      -Widespread infection of disease due to using condoms more often than the probability of protection
      -Widespread poverty and crime due to the Global Economic Collapse
      -An explosive geopolitical environment.  There will be many simultaneous and deadly wars as a result of the contraction of the entire economy that will reduce resource availability.  There will be very deadly conflicts over valuable resources that can sustain regional societies.

      Don't worry, this isn't the end of the world, it's just the end of the world as we know it.  Hopefully, life will be better one day.  Cheers.  :)

      • Reason_Being

         Wow, you managed to write a ton without making even one correct statement.  That is something.  Nice job.

  • RobertoTheChi

    If you want a good laugh then read through the comment section over there. Pure lunacy!

    • allein

      Just skimming through them made my head hurt. At least I saw one comment from a sane person…

    • Stev84

      The internet seems to attract the most insane Catholics imaginable. You hardly ever meet such people in real life. They are almost indistinguishable from Protestant fundamentalists.

      • RobertoTheChi

        Unfortunately I have a few bat-shit crazy catholics like that in my family and I stay the hell away from them needless to say. I dated a guy a while ago and he turned out to be the looniest catholic (I wouldn’t be shocked if he was one of the crazier commentors over there) that I have ever met and seeing that I know a lot of bat-shit crazy catholics that’s saying something. He was very good looking and seemed normal, but looks can be deceiving. He turned out to be a 40 year old virgin (I shit you not!) and was constantly bashing me over the head with the bible. I wish it was just online that I met crazy catholics like that, but unfortunately I run into them far too often in real life. 

  • Margaret Whitestone

    When you believe bullshit it skews your entire worldview.  This is just more evidence of that fact.  

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Let’s establish our first premise as this, that contraception is the moral evil, and the contraceptive is merely a tool to that end.

    Rubbers don’t kill people, people kill people.

  • Doctor Jen

    If you can get to the end of Bad Catholic’s post without puking, you will be rewarded with the comments. There are many arguing that condoms should not be used by married couples, even when one of them has AIDS!! There’s even one guy who basically says if you truly love your wife, you’ll never have sex with her again. These folks are batshit crazy!!!

  • pagansister

    Didn’t you all realize that a good, rule following Catholic use ONLY  NFP—-and when the female is fertile she is allowed to NOT have intercourse if she and mate wish not to have a child or another child.  Of course they are NOT using  ABC, and they still might have a pregnancy develop from their act if indeed someone calculated incorrectly.  BUT they didn’t use an artificial means (AKA condom, pill etc.) to prevent conception, thus hell isn’t in the cards or confession or whatever.  I haven’t figured out just how NFP is OK if the purpose is to NOT get pregnant, as is ABC.   The bugaboo is apparently a man made prevention method VS the GOD made one. :o )    I taught in a Catholic school.  I have a hard time believing all those 2 children Catholic families used only NFP?  In fact, the teachers I worked with who only had 2-3 kids most certainly were using some ABC.  I can’t imagine being married and having to calculate WHEN it was  “safe” to have sex so we wouldn’t have  conception for an entire marriage.  As to disease prevention?    How stupid to advise anyone that using a condom is wrong under any situation!  Especially when it is dictated by MEN who supposedly are prohibited from having sex at all.  Of course we know that many priests have/had a lovely sex life —with women (and men t00)  and unfortunately  with children too.

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      My boyfriend went to a Catholic elementary school where, mysteriously, all of the families seemed to have exactly one or two children. Of course very few normal Catholics take the birth control prohibition seriously.

      And NFP is kind of a dodge, anyway. If fundie Catholics were really serious about being open to pregnancy every time they have sex, they’d embrace the Quiverfull philosophy. Quiverfullers may be insane, but they’re not wimping out, LOL.

      • pagansister

         Yes, Anna, there have been a lot of “NFP” children born to Catholic parents.   Modern Catholics, IMO, just do as they please regarding this situation, but the Pope must do his job and continue to spread the ridiculous nonsense regarding birth control, such as “continue to accept all children God gives you” or something like that said in Catholic marriage vows.  :o )  If not married  we all know that no Catholic is having sex, so the subject of birth control is not necessary. 

    • AAA

      My wife and I used NFP successfully for 6 years before deciding to have children.  There was a time of a few months with ABC due to a medical condition.  Of course, the whole time absolutely sucked because sex was only allowed when she was absoultely positive she wouldn’t get pregnant.  If that one time happened to coincide with being tired, well better luck next month.

      Anyway, if I remember, the whole idea behind NFP is that you can delay (indefinitely?) having children, but you are always open to the possibility of having children.  So it did work for us, although we were pretty rigorous about it.  I think the effectiveness is fairly high, if done properly, but that’s probably the case with anything.  Of course, if I had to do it again, I would say hell no.

      • pagansister

         Am glad the NFP worked for you for 6 years—-and I tend to agree with you that if done properly it’s effectiveness is fairly high.  I just can’t imagine my sex life being ruled by a thermometer etc.  May I say it seems your attitude on NFP has “matured” with your last statement.   :o )  

        • AAA

          I was never too keen on the idea, but I was under the assumption that other activities would be performed in lieu of actual intercourse.  Boy, was I mistaken.

          My carpal tunnel syndrome is coming along quite nicely, thank you.

          • pagansister

             Welcome, AAA.  The longer we live, hopefully the more we learn. 

    • Sam

      yeah, i don’t trust this NFP thing. catholics should just rape their wives. 

      i really hate catholics now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    We know that contraception works

    yup. and I don’t need to read any further than that. Thanks Marc Barnes!

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    What is the Catholic position on an infertile person using a condom to reduce the risk of an STD? Yeah, I know they think it’s sinful for that person to have sex at all outside of marriage, but lets treat that as a separate sin. Can this person use a condom?

    • Poundcake

      The Pope actually commented on this same issue… the problem Catholics have with condoms is when they are used for contraception. If an infertile person uses a condom to protect his partner (who is also infertile) from an STD, that’s not immoral, because the condom is not acting as contraception. Same with homosexuals using a condom to prevent the transmission of HIV. Regardless of the sinfulness of homesexual activity, the condom in that case is simply a tool and therefore not immoral. I believe that’s the gist of it, though I could be wrong.

  • Conuly

    Do these people realize that the history of the world prior to effective contraception and abortion included a hell of a lot of infanticide?

    Much of this infanticide was of the sort that allowed people to fool themselves – they left their kids in the woods and hoped they’d be picked up by kind strangers, they brought them to orphanages and hoped they wouldn’t be one of the 90% or more of infants who died there – but there was plenty that was more deliberate, drowning and the like.

    I’d rather have the condoms.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adrian-Chester/682538320 Adrian Chester

      Exactly, I think having a child should be a deliberate decision, not oops  forgot to use a condom looks like we are having a kid we didn’t want. 

      • Sam

        I was a mistake. but that’s just the point… a stupid mistake… not a “planned” never-using-contraception-BS. 
        :)

        • Jonathan

           Yes, my parents tell me that they wish I had never been born. :

          Please just stop rationalizing now.  Either you know it to be wrong or right, and you are either wrong or right in said decision.  Why rationalize?  To feel better about yourselves?  Rather telling and childish if you ask me.

        • Jacobhghs43

          I was a result of my parents not knowing how to properly use Natural Family Planning. If they would have been using contraception at the time, I wouldn’t exist. People neglect to remember that the results of said mistake are people. When people talk about what happens when natural methods fail, and how bad it can be, they are directly speaking of me, and I really don’t like the fact that my very existence is being pointed to as a reason not to use NFP. 

          • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

            It’s not all about you. So you wouldn’t exist. Big deal. Neither would anyone else if the circumstances of our own conceptions had been different. 

            There’s no reason to take anything personally. Unplanned pregnancy is something that people wish to avoid. That doesn’t make the existence of people who were the result of unplanned pregnancies wrong or bad in any way. 

            By the way, even if you were unplanned, your mother made the choice to carry her pregnancy to term and then also made the choice to raise you. So if she had thought of you as a “mistake,” she could have taken steps to correct the mistake. And if she had, you wouldn’t be experiencing any existential angst about it.

    • ariofrio

      Lack of contraception included infanticide, but did not _require_ infanticide. Specially in the US and other wealthy countries, there’s no reason to leave your kid to die. Society can sustain them. There’s adoption. Welfare.

  • Edmond

    I’m not so sure it’s even contraception that they see as evil.  Ultimately, contraception represents an interruption to the natural insemination process due to one thing: a free human decision to control our own biology.  THAT is the “real” evil here.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I feel kind of dumb for asking this, but is the blogger at Bad Catholic for real? I know there are people that have the same world views, but is he a poe?

    • Glasofruix

      Nope, he’s a real wacko.

  • me

    This is a little unfair as far as criticism of the position.  The post is obviously assuming the position y’all disagree with on contraception and just giving a very brief enthymematic argument merely intended to say: look, here’s what we have in common, let’s discuss this further issue that arises.  If you want to make fun of the case against contraception make fun of someone actually attempting to make the case.

  • Hellbound Alleee

    Does he have an exception for women like me who are sick and would experience death from pregnancy? Or who would not likely carry a fetus to term anyway? surely they would not advocate knowingly having children who would not have a mother. /end sarcasm

    • Stev84

      They prefer women to die. It’s why they are also against emergency abortions to save women’s lives. Even if the pregnancy isn’t viable anyways. So much for “family values”

    • Miss_Beara

      There was a case in Arizona (I think) where, in a Catholic hospital, a nurse who happened to also be a nun performed a late term abortion on a woman who was most certainly going to die without one. The woman survived. The nun lost her ranking in the hospital. I don’t remember if she was excommunicated. When questioned about it, the hospital bosses never said that they were glad that the nurse saved the woman’s life. They just do not care.

    • Liberated Liberal

      Yes, the only choices they see are:

      1) You never have sex again.  Period.
      2) You take the chance of getting pregnant, and if you die, you die a noble death carrying a baby.  Nobody cares that there isn’t anyone to take care of that baby afterwards.   

      End of story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1379551677 Ullrich Fischer

     One more object lesson re the downsides of regarding as authorities on anything, people who know nothing about anything yet claim to know everything there is to know about everything because an invisible friend told someone something thousands of years ago.

  • Sam

    wow they are FUCKING INSANE.

  • guest.

    Okay, most of these comments and indeed this post are not using science, not using philosophy, not using logic as justification; but rather using the fallacious and random desires of your heart for justification. To view a moral question with a relative view as justification is disordered and rejected in the realms of high scholars. To think that in your 0-110 years of life, compared to thousands of years of study by billions and billions of people in the Catholic church, is enough study of moral truth; I would beg to differ. At the very least, even if you don’t agree with Church views. approach these moral subjects with respect and dignity; and I shall attempt to do the same (for I too am under-qualified compared to the history of the Church). Research your facts, understand the ground your opponent stands on, sympathize, unite, do not divide. Love, not hate, compassion, not rejection, self control, not ranting. An openness to truth is key, and just because we don’t like the truth doesn’t mean it is no longer true. I do hope that everyone has a great day. :)

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      To view a moral question with a relative view as justification is disordered and rejected in the realms of high scholars. To think that in your 0-110 years of life, compared to thousands of years of study by billions and billions of people in the Catholic church, is enough study of moral truth; I would beg to differ.

      And I would beg to differ with you. The people in the Roman Catholic church who made these rules are human beings. They are not special. They are not magical. They have no unique insight into morality. I am not going to treat them with deference. Their beliefs are not worthy of respect or dignity.

      • guest.

         And you think you do have a better insight into morality? You are a human being as well; with far less research and study than the Church has done into morality. If their beliefs are not worthy of respect or dignity then in turn, by the same logic, your beliefs are not to be respected either. However, it is fortunate that this logic is flawed. I never said the rules in the church were ‘magical’, but they are special because of the amount of history before arriving at each and every conclusion. Therefore, there is much more credibility to these conclusions than at first meets the eye– without even commenting on whether the Church’s conclusions are right or wrong; they still have the time and energy to back it up. (and lives! Billions upon billions of people have died for the up-keeping of morality within the Church)

        I respect your points Anna, but I do not agree. :)

        • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

          Yes, I’m just as capable of forming opinions on morality as a bunch of old men. Again, they are human beings. They have no special or divine powers. They can make up whatever rules they want, but no one else has to take them seriously. I do not consider their beliefs to be worthy of respect or dignity because they are inventing them. These men are no more qualified to make moral pronouncements than anyone else, and they are basing them on what I believe to be pure fiction, mythology, in fact. Their rules are not only ludicrous; they are harmful and regressive. 

          Why do you blindly believe what these men tell you? Why do you think they are qualified to make pronouncements like this? What makes them special? Surely you don’t think that every religious worldview is valid. Billions of people have dedicated their lives to Hindu mythology. That doesn’t mean that Hindu priests have any special insight into morality, no matter how much research and study they think they have done. Again, they are human beings. There is no reason to blindly follow them. Why not think for yourself?

        • Liberated Liberal

          I’m going to be a bit snarky, but I’m also serious.

          As you say, thousands of years of moral research, reflection, belief, and unfortunately, authority, have led the current Pope and his administration (as well as most before him) to the conclusion that it is perfectly fine to hide, aide, and support priests who rape and abuse children.  They think they have the right and duty to actively hinder outside investigations of this abuse.  They truly believe that it is morally superior to brush these abuses under the rug and make sure the public is ignorant in order to “save face” over letting the public see what is going on, because hurting the church’s reputation is worse than hurting a child. This, to the Pope, is more important than those children.  And yet, he has the nerve to claim that condom usage is immoral?

          And don’t claim that he’s doing everything he can for those poor victims, because that’s a bold lie, and I dare you to give me any evidence to the contrary.  Doing an “investigation” that concludes that homosexual men are to blame is a disgusting excuse, and only puts the moral standing of the church even lower.

          I’m sorry.  Years of research do not make right.  The research is biased.  The research is hindered by preconceived notions of what these men think your “God” wants.  It is based on a “God” and a bible that we don’t believe in and that happens to be so morally objectionable that even Catholics don’t follow 90% of it.  Billions of lives DO NOT MAKE RIGHT, either, by the way.  The lives should not have been lost, but the loss proves nothing.

             

  • Paul

    Yes.  Total and life-giving…if God so chooses.  Marital union should never be diminished by taking a self giving element away.  It is meant to be unitive and procreative…again if God so chooses.  By taking a pill (which many cause abortions) or wearing a condom, you purposely block the highest end of that union to begin with.  That, by design…means you only give part of yourself…thus making it an act of lust and selfishness.  Bullshit?  Not in the least.  Truth?  Absolutely. 

    • Liberated Liberal

      Your argument doesn’t make sense in the context of NFP vs condoms.  When you are intentionally having sex when you know a woman isn’t fertile, you ARE “blocking the highest end of that union.” It may not be a physical barrier, but neither is a birth control pill.  NFP users are putting tremendous time and effort into avoiding that “highest end,” as a matter of fact, way MORE time and effort than a condom user.    

      “If God so chooses” one to be pregnant, and wants it no matter what, birth control pills, condoms and even an abortive procedure shouldn’t be able stop him.  He is God, after all.  If you use that logic for NFP, it must also extend to all other forms of contraception.  If he can bypass NFP cycles, but not hormonal pills or condoms, then wouldn’t that make these contraceptive devices more powerful than God?  If so, that’s an awesome admission.

      No matter what, using NFP is “purposely” avoiding “the highest end of that union.”  You are intentionally avoiding pregnancy.   You ARE having sex without the intent of being procreative, otherwise NFP wouldn’t even be a consideration.  You can’t claim NFP is a highly effective way to avoid pregnancy and say that it’s “life-giving” at the same time.  It’s one way or the other, not both. 

      Just as an added note: I don’t like BC pills and I find no fault with NFP.  I have no problem with anybody choosing not to use birth control, with choosing to have a million children, or choosing to use NFP.  Even speaking about how wonderful it’s been FOR YOU is great.  But to say you’re speaking the “Truth” by saying that NFP is magically procreative while being actively NOT procreative while condom usage is morally corrupt and not life giving while ALSO being actively not procreative is, well, as somebody so eloquently said “gobbledegook.”  

      A recommended read by a Catholic:
      “Logical Fallacies of the Anti-ABC Critics”:
      http://revising.tripod.com/fallacies.htm 

      • cburton103

        You’re correct in pointing out faulty logic in Paul’s post here. Certainly, either NFP or artificial birth control can be used to avoid pregnancy. For Catholics, the essential issue is that the end doesn’t justify the means. As Catholics, NFP is seen as being consistent with natural law, and is thus a just means of avoiding pregnancy when a couple decides it’s not prudent to have a child. Contraception, on the other hand, is not consistent with natural law because it attempts to remove the procreative aspect from that sexual act and detriments the human person and society in the pursuit of pleasure. Many Catholics and non-Catholics are a bit confused on the logic behind the decision, so I just wanted to clear things up a bit here.

        • Liberated Liberal

          Right, but I’m arguing that NFP does not necessarily comply with “Natural Law” any more than a condom does.  They just say that it does, with absolutely nothing to back up the assertion.  

          I will argue that taking temperature, tracking mucous during every wipe, feeling cervix position and then having sex at a time when hormones usually dictate that a woman isn’t really interested in sex while hoping desperately that you read the signs correctly is not any more natural than waiting until a man and a woman are emotionally, mentally and physically in tune with each other and slipping on a condom.  Hell, use a sheepskin one if you’re not concerned about STDs, and you’re getting more and more natural.  

          If they’re trying to argue that the “natural end” of sex must be that sperm reaches the vagina/cervix/uterus, then birth control pills (which contain hormones naturally found in a woman’s body anyway) would allow that to happen.

          In either case, you ARE taking away the procreative nature of sex.  And when you get to the heart of it, sin is all about intention, and if you have sex intending to avoid pregnancy, well, then you’ve sinned.  Period.  And NFP aided in that sin.

          And until Catholics live their entire lives naturally, I won’t take it a bit seriously, regardless of how much justification they give.  Nothing they do in any other point in their lives is even remotely natural – not in the way they move, eat, drink and live.  Coffee and alcohol are not natural, but having volunteered for years to help set up for the Knights of Columbus meetings, I can tell you both were consumed like lives depended on it.  Taking medication isn’t natural, and actually prevents the body in taking the  natural course of fighting or giving in to the illness.  Either be consistent or nothing Catholics say will even matter.

  • cburton103

    This is correct. Roughly a couple years ago, the Pope was speaking about condoms and he said that a male prostitute deciding to use a condom out of the desire to not spread disease to his clients would be a step towards moralization. The media jumped all over it and claimed that the Pope was “lifting the archaic ban on condoms”, etc.

  • cburton103

    That is a significant part of the biblical basis for the Catholic rejection of contraception. Ultimately, the rejection of contraception as immoral comes from what we Catholics call the natural law. Natural law, in part, says that actions (among other things) have a natural end (as in a destination, more or less). Anything that is done to disrupt the process from reaching its natural end is therefore objectively disordered. The common analogy here is eating. Eating is both pleasurable and nutritional. In the case of a bulimic individual, nutrition is thwarted by throwing up, thereby disrupting the process of eating from its natural end. We can easily see the fact that bulimia is an objectively disordered state. So it is with contraception. Sex is for both pleasure (union of spouses) and for procreation. If we use contraception during a sexual act, we remove the potential for procreation while retaining the pleasure. Therefore, according to natural law, contracepted sex is objectively disordered. The negative social, health, environmental, etc., effects of contraception are secondary reasons for contraception being objectively disordered, and they also point to the fact that contraception is not in line with our nature as human beings.

    Thank you for asking a question instead of assuming you know the ins and outs of Catholic teaching. There has been an enormous amount of false information about Catholics on this post. That being said, most modern Catholics haven’t helped the issue much by learning, practicing, and defending their faith.

    Hopefully that helped!

    • Liberated Liberal

      I would still like to know how using NFP, which is actively avoiding procreation while having sex, ISN’T disordered then, while any other form contraception is?  

      And saying that it is “open to life” is nothing but a baseless lie.  You are working very hard to have sex during a time when you know (or desperately hope) that you are infertile and therefore, won’t get pregnant.  So, the sex act is no longer procreative.  

      I’m not arguing against your natural end argument (except that it’s stupid in that 99% of the food most people eat in modern society isn’t natural and leads to poor consequences, lack of exercise, driving cards, looking at TV screens, etc. are ALL things that prevent humans from functioning naturally and I don’t see any Catholic on a crusade against those things), I’m arguing that you have no foundation for arguing that NFP = brilliantly moral while ABC = EVIL.  None.

      • cburton103

        The moral licitness of an act is based on the exact action in question. So, when a couple has sex on an infertile day, they’re not actively thwarting the couple’s fertility – they’re working with the man and woman’s natural biology. When a couple chooses to use NFP to avoid pregnancy, they are not having sex on fertile days. The lack of the action is essentially different than having sex on that day and artificially thwarting the possibility for procreation. So a couple using NFP never has a sexual encounter that artificially withholds the couple’s procreative capacities. It is for this reason that NFP is in line with Natural Law, whereas contraception stands in contradiction to it. I understand that this is a nuanced explanation, but it is certainly logically sound. In conclusion, it is not the act of avoiding pregnancy that is objectively disordered, but the means by which the end is accomplished. Spacing births appropriately is an important part of stewardship of our gifts as Christians.

        I don’t recall claiming that couples practicing NFP are by necessity more open to life than couples using contraception as a method of birth control. I don’t think it’s true, in fact. A couple using NFP can be just as closed off to bringing a new life into the world as a couple using contraception. I also would obviously not claim that each time a couple has intercourse that a child must be made (or even that the couple must be attempting to have a child). The point is that the couple should not attempt to render a man or woman infertile during a sexual act. This is entirely different than making use of the natural, infertile time during a woman’s cycle.

        I agree that it is important for people to be good stewards of their bodies, as well. It’s important for us to properly nourish ourselves and exercise as well. Is it immoral to overeat and become unhealthy? I would say so. It is breaking the natural law by engaging in overeating for pleasure or comfort to the detriment of the person as a whole. By its nature, though, infractions on natural law in the realm of food are not as black and white as using contraception or not. Also, I would argue that the social and moral implications of contraception are much more grave than those of overeating (although it is still certainly a topic worth consideration, especially in our day when so many modern diseases are avoidable by leading a healthier lifestyle).

  • Jane

    Ugh…Marc Barnes, the Eustace Scrubb of Catholicism…

    Don’t lend any more credibility to this arrogant, ignorant, rude, ill-mannered, narcissistic little turd than he’s already being given by Patheos, please. 

  • Jonathan

    Let us address the very core of this entire issue.  Something that the blogger has glossed over.  What will we value: virtue or hedonism?  Why?

    And don’t give me the good is bad and bad is good duck speak.  I am not in the mood to tolerate far left wing code language.

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      Well, you won’t win many friends with that attitude, LOL.

      “Virtue.” “Hedonism.” To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

  • DoYouCare?

    Not all religious people are rude against those who disagree, and not all non-believers are like people in the comment section calling a religious rule or view “bullshit”.

    Even if it their rules don’t make sense to you, you will only downgrade yourself by bashing it and think that you know it all instead of showing some respect and try to understand each other same goes for religious people. 

    Nobody is wrong and nobody is right, people want abortion to stop because it kills/wastes a baby who could become a pilot or a doctor…Guess what using a condom wastes sperm <wich lives and gives life.

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      You may find strong language crude, but I see no reason to beat around the bush. Religious rules aren’t worthy of respect simply because religious people say they are. If a rule is harmful and nonsensical, then people who disagree with it should point out why. There’s no need for bashing, but criticism and condemnation are certainly not out of order.

  • ADinks

    The blog to which this is responding: longer than my college textbook on sexual health, yet still goes no where. Like you said, he spends an exorbitant amount of time rationalizing and explaining. It’s like he’s unsure and needs to convince himself. For people who only have sex with a spouse, where infidelity doesn’t exist, I think his post was applicable. But, for the world as a whole, it’s dangerous anti-contraceptive talk like his that leads to so many teen pregnancies, cheating, STIs, etc. Just do like this post – keep it short, succinct, simple, and honest. USE CONDOMS.

  • James_Locke

    This post was not very friendly

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.heidenreich Steve Heidenreich

    “It’s amazing” – ‘Friendly’ Atheist on Theology of the Body

    Nice misquotation, how intellectual of you.