why has the pope banned the use of contraceptives and birth control?

Question

is he and the catholic church so insensitive to the spread of aids and other STDs? or even the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to take care of more children in a home? does he not see the state of affairs in our modern-day world? does he not know that such decisions can cost innocent people their lives?

okay so lets say its not doing "gods will". Imagine what the world would be like WITHOUT ANY forms of contraceptives and birth controls. or simply imagine the condom was never invented................. scary huh.

Answer 1

Priests love the little children.

Answer 2

While I disagree with the Pope's perception about the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy inside a committed marriage, I do think that the position reveals a truth that I wished more people accepted.

Sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship is dangerous...yes, using a condom can protect you from AIDS and STD's but the key word is CAN...there are no guarantees. Even the best contraceptive can't prevent pregnancy 100% (ask my son!)...and the psychological consequences of sex outside of marriage can be devastating

I agree with the church's position that all sex outside of marriage should not be condoned in any way...with that perspective, AIDS and STDs aren't an issue...only sex outside of this type of relationship can cost "innocent" people their lives! Inside a marriage, only the pregnancy issue has any validity.

...and this is where the Pope and I part company. I don't believe that God said that the only purpose for sex between married people was procreational! If it was, then he probably would have made it as unpleasant as the other biological functions required for reproduction (e.g., PMS, retaining water, labor pains, stretch marks, etc...).

I would disagree that is it increasingly difficult to take care of more children now that it was in the past. In the not so distant past, the majority of the population lived at a subsistence level...many could barely afford food and clothing. Today, most people have a LOT more resources at their disposal INCLUDING a whole lot of social assistance that wasn't available less than 100 years ago. My great grandparents (mother's side) each had more than 10 kids...they didn't have fancy cars, they couldn't send their kids to Harvard, and the kids didn't wear designer clothing but all survived and had a productive life. With my resources, I could easily support 10 kids and give them a lot more luxuries than my grandparents enjoyed...but I would probably have to sacrifice my BMW, my cell phones, cable TV and a lot of other things...but is that wrong?

However, I would say that if a married couple wants to limit the number of children they have for whatever reason, God isn't going to condemn them for using certain forms of birth control.

Edit (based on your additional details)

...not sure about the scary part...if the condom and other types of birth control had never been invented, I think people would be a LOT more careful about sex than they are today! The existence of things like the pill and condoms makes it easy for people to treat sex FAR too casually because it removes one of the biggest deterrents to casual sex...the possibility of pregnancy!

Answer 3

Judeo-Christian tradition has taught for thousands of years:
1. Single people should be celibate.
2. Married people should be faithful to each other (adultery is wrong).
3. Married couples should welcome God's gift of children and, therefore, artificial birth control is against the will of God.

If the world is going to ignore teachings about chastity (1 & 2), then why is the world so upset about teaching artificial birth control (3)?

People who are already ignoring the more important teachings about chastity (1 and 2) should have no problem ignoring the less important teaching of artificial birth control (3).

Even if a person infected with AIDS was to use a condom to help protect his or her spouse, condoms are not 100% effective (read the box) and the spouse may be infected and die anyway. A person who truly loves their spouse would not endanger them in this way.

In regards to sex outside of marriage, the Church makes it a practice not to tell people how to sin. Fornication with or without a condom is still fornication. Adultery with or without a condom is still adultery.

With love in Christ.

Answer 4

The Church's teaching is and has been that all single, unmarried Christians -- straight, gay, or bi -- are called to chastity. Abstinence from sex, in other words. It holds that the only proper expression of the sexual act takes place within a marriage. And in that context, a married couple also has a calling -- to allow their union to be open to the creation of new life.

A couple can make use of natural family planning, which does not chemically interfere with the body's fertility/infertility cycle but works with it, in order to space the births of their children for valid reasons (financial hardship, for example). It requires a commitment from both partners and it is a bit more work than swallowing a pill, but done correctly and consistently it is at least as effective as using an oral contraceptive.

I realize the Church's position is not popular, and I believe most Catholics struggle with it at various times in their lives. But it's supposed to be what we aim for, even if we miss the mark.

Answer 5

If you're clever enough to make a tenuous link between religion and the effects/spread of HIV, then one would surmise that you're obviously well acquainted with the pertinent facts and figures that you've 'casually' left out of your ignorant, partisan rhetoric.
In case that you’re not, let me be so kind as to inform people here of an omitted but salient fact, in order we might, at the very least, induce a sense of equilibrium to this argument .

Fact: Countries which are predominantly Roman Catholic in religion typically enjoy a low HIV prevalence rate (in many cases less than 1% of the population). Compare this with the fact that countries which are not predominantly Roman Catholic suffer a high HIV/Prevalence rate and you can probably work out for your self who's better off for being under the influence of the 'insensitive' Catholic Church.

This is of course assuming there is a link between HIV and religion. I'd suggest a link between poverty and HIV is more tenable. In either case, I'd prefer to hand a bottle of mineral water and a loaf of bread to an African, rather of a bit of rubber.

Condoms are not the answer, they are not 100% effective in preventing HIV infection and do not prohibit the cardinal propagator of HIV, which is casual polygamy. It's people's attitudes towards sex that need to change, and that takes time, effort and education. Look at the current state of Uganda if you want positive proof of this in action.

I myself do not practise a religion, but I do take particular offence at the 'fashionable mindset' towards religion and HIV, which you clearly exemplify in your rhetorical question.
You see, the real state of affairs is that credulous, knee-jerk reactionaries like you seek to dumb down the issue of HIV by determining it as one disease perpetuated by one religion, which ultimately undermines the hard work done to combat the real causes of the spread of HIV. That's what I consider to be costing innocent people their lives.
You'd rather flatter your own intellect by bashing religion and finding a scapegoat for all the world's troubles, rather than to read a little into the subject you're discussing in order to form an educated and impartial opinion, which incidentally, is always far more conducive to the matter at hand.

Now let's be honest, you weren't asking a question, you were expressing an opinion, and in all fairness, you got mine...

Answer 6

a sturdy position to entice the line on birth control is between abortifacients (consisting of cutting-edge variations of the pill) and measures that avert idea. HV drew a a lot less defensible line between organic and man made birth control. this can be a huge difference and not using an ethical enormous difference. Cheers, Bruce--Catholic father of four

Answer 7

The Church's official teaching always has condemned the practice.

The condemnation has been made explicitly by popes in this century--consider Pius XI's Casti Connubii (1930) and Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (1968)--but is hardly new. Patristic teachers such as Ambrose, Justin Martyr, Jerome, Origen, and John Chrysostom condemned contraception. Typical is this remark by Augustine: "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it" (De Conjugiis Adulterinis, II, 12).

In his Catholic Catechism Fr. John Hardon argues that the Church's condemnation can be seen even earlier in Scripture. He writes, "Given the widespread contraceptive practice of the first century of the Christian era, euphemistically referred to as 'using magic' and 'using drugs,' it is logical to see in the New Testament prohibition of mageia and pharmakeia an implicit condemnation of contraception. This is especially true when the contexts (Gal. 5:20 and Rev. 21:8, 22:15) refer to sins against chastity" (p. 367).

The clarity and persistency of the position that contraception is always immoral places the burden of proof on those who believe the magisterium is in error. As one might expect, some have taken on the burden happily. Theologians advocating the liceity of contraception have come forward with arguments which have at least a surface plausibility. Many of these arguments are repeated by those who wish to remain "good Catholics" while avoiding inconvenient Catholic moral teachings.

Thomas Aquinas taught that not all the truths of the faith can be proved by reason, but all the objections to the faith can be disproved by reason. Perhaps this principle can be applied in the debate over contraception. With this in mind, let's look at some objections against the official teaching and at possible responses to the objections. If the objections can be shown to be weak, the position of the Church is strengthened.

Answer 8

Prob due to the fact that it's considered in some religious households a form of abortion.

In the case of abortion, I can make a very good case that the Christian Bible does not equate abortion with murder, and that the fetus does not have the same legal status as a grown man (and neither do women, children, or slaves, for that matter -- but the fetus has a monetary value placed upon it whereas a man, woman, or child would have a life-for-a-life bounty placed upon him or her).

I agree with you to the fullest degree. Banning the use of contraceptives and birth control is a hideous and dangerous idea.

Answer 9

It is impossible to adequately address your question in the limited confines of this forum. Here are a few items:

God does not need man's participation in creating life. Witness Adam. He has blessed us in allowing us to particpate in the miracle of life.

Now, God wants us to be 'fruitful and multipy'. That is His Will. Sin is defined as the intereference with the will of God.

Artificial birth control interferes with His will. Further many methods, e.g. certain birth control pills are abortifacients.....i.e. they abort a fertilized egg....a human fetus.

The Church, which was promised guidance by the Holy Spirit by Jesus (when He told the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church: "He who hears you, hears me."), teaches that life begins at conception.

It is worthy of note that scientists can not prove when life begins....does it begin with a beating heart, or with the first brain wave?.....BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS "WHEN DOES A FETUS OBTAIN A SOUL?". ONLY God knows this and it is not man's place to interfere.

http://scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
Mat 6:26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
Mat 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life?
Mat 6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin;
Mat 6:29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
Mat 6:32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
Mat 6:33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.
Mat 6:34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.

Answer 10

Contraceptives used to prevent the spread of disease are not banned. Last time i checked it worked for birth control when used for an STD barrier too.
You can thank Pope John Paul II for this, because of his visits to Africa.

Answer 11

Because they believe that protection enables people to have sex for pleasure, and OMG sex is NOT for pleasure but for procreation! Which I think is ludicrous.

The world is overpopulated and the Catholic church and others like it all have blood on their hands, and are a part of the problem.