The Moral Evil of Contraception According to St. John Chrysostom

[@Zematus737]

Wow. A powerful quote. Increase and multiply was one of the first laws, together with imitation in likeness, self restraint, and a sabbath. I can bet there are ten hidden away in that first week, but I'll leave that to the philosophers.

[@anthtan]

It's the very first command, actually.

[@Zematus737]

@@anthtan That's what I had thought too. It is the first covenant, without a doubt. But the first command was the separation of elements and the light from the dark.

[@anthtan]

@@Zematus737 I see what you mean. God said, "let there be light." But this is something man could not do because he had not yet come into existence. I'm thinking that the first command after the creation of man, the first thing he tells them is to be fruitful and multiply.

[@Zematus737]

@@anthtan Yes, but in making man in his own image, we inherit the work of maintaining what was first put into order by the imitation of his own work by what it is in our power to effect in our own way.

[@martinpattison8916]

Now there are too many people so contraception should be encouraged.

[@MrPeach1]

I had thoughts about this. If Zacharias was practicing Contraception we wouldn't have got John the Baptist. If Abraham was using contraception we wouldn't have Issac. It also contradicts the command of God in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply.

[@MZONE991]

true, but is it really worse than murder?

[@St_AngusYoung]

@@MZONE991 it is to God

[@MZONE991]

@@St_AngusYoung where does scripture or the Church teach so?

[@masterchief8179]

@@MZONE991 Actually it is force of expression of one Church Father. It is enforcing the grave nature of the sin, but not drawing the exact moral metrics. No Church Father must be read as his authority is the one of the Church, but in light of Church’s authority. So If the magisterium of the Church says abortion is morally equivalent to murder, so contraception should be less than it, since contraception is less harmful than abortion. Still it says that contraception is grave (mortal) sin.

[@Olena.Osilo75]

If Abraham was using contraception there wouldn't be Ismael! Be fruitful and multiply was said to Adam and Eve; yet they failed at that part prior to eating forbidden fruit. In Corinthians it says better not to get married = don't need extra population.

[@winebarimunsi4732]

Beautifully presented🙏🙏🙏🌍🌍🌍thank you so much👏👏👏

[@prayunceasingly2029]

Is any of us actually worthy of Christ? I guess God has chosen the faithful as worthy of Him. But of themselves without God's free grace none would be.

[@MsHburnett]

The church agreed to the rhythm method 7 days abstinence during ovulation.

[@djg585]

ONLY in cases of serious or grave reasons.

[@syedhasanahmed3514]

@@djg585 'Serious or grave reasons' is actually very wide, read the two addresses by Pius XII that St Paul VI's words are in the context of. I gave the citations and quoted some sections in replies to 'Fred A's comment on this video if you want to access them.

[@djg585]

@@macalo80able Humanae Vitae specifically states that NFP may be morally used only for "serious" or "grave" reasons. And no, there is no moral responsibility to practice NFP for planning purposes. That is NOT the constant teaching of the Church.

[@djg585]

@@syedhasanahmed3514 Papal 'addresses' certainly do not have the charism of infallibility. The constant teaching of the Church does. And the constant teaching of the Church has commended parents who are generous in accepting the lives of however many children God wishes too send them' St. Catherine of Sienna was the 19th child of her own parents. Thank God those parents didn't have modernist ideas about having children.

[@djg585]

@@macalo80able Humanae Vitae also states that the needs of society must also be taken into account, not just the needs of the parents and family in question. And the United States certainly needs more Catholic citizens!

[@djg585]

How did he define usury?

[@MZONE991]

I would not go as far as saying that contraception is worse than murder

[@djg585]

Contraception is slowly murdering whole nations. Is that not at least as evil as murdering an individual? "It is better that one man die, rather than the whole nation perish."

[@MZONE991]

@@djg585 No, because in contraception you are not murdering anyone

[@syedhasanahmed3514]

@@MZONE991 Rather, you are participating with an entire group of people in murdering a whole nation and encouraging its moral decline, since contraception is always interpreted as a license to have casual sexual relations.

[@djg585]

@@MZONE991 You are attacking society and the Body of Christ. That certainly can be a greater crime than a single murder.

[@MZONE991]

@@syedhasanahmed3514 This is not a fair analogy though A better analogy would be someone who used contraception only one time and not someone actively trying to making ot mainstream

[@Oliveoil91661]

"The best theologians are Catholic theologians who used to be (catholic-bashing) Protestant theologians." ~ B. Julian Kohl. IE: Dr. David Anders; Dr. Robert Tilley; Dr. Scott Hahn; Dr. Taylor Marshall; Dr. John Bergsma. Kohl is spot on. That's next to impossible to argue with that kind of lineup. They were ALL protestants once.

[@petergonzales9448]

You are cordially invited to the Wedding And the Great Feast of the Lord Jesus Christ and His bride the Church to take Place in the Kingdom Of Heaven Really Really soon, no Gift required. He was the Gift for you .

[@MsHburnett]

Imagine the worlds population if people didn't have sexual encounters except to create babies.

[@syedhasanahmed3514]

The point is not that we have to expressly intend to conceive in every act but rather that we cannot positively intend to prevent conception in any particular act. The rhythm method reduces the rate at which successful conceptions take place, but doesn't actually infringe upon the very integrity of the act as does coitus interruptus, prophylactics or contraceptive pills, and so therefore it is possible to use the rhythm method without making the act or the intentions in the act defective in the sense defined in the first sentence.

[@MrPeach1]

Imagine feeding 5000 people with a couple loaves...Its not for us to know what God can do.

[@JR-tl8tg]

Agreed, sadly guilt and justification for sin will say otherwise

[@djg585]

Imagine the western world's population continuing its current contraception-caused decline due to its below-replacement birth rate.

[@sweetmary3233]

So MsHburnett you think it’s ok to kill others in the womb so YOU can enjoy this Earth. It’s ok for You to live but not for others. How many more should die to please you? God knows what He is doing and is not overwhelmed by the population. He is on His Throne taking care of us and watching how wicked this generation has become.

[@freda7961]

Any contraception? Even non-invasive ones (for lack of a better term), like condom? Assuming that’s the case, how can that be morally evil when the idea is responsible parenthood and family planning? It’s not as if married couples always have it in their control (withdrawal method is not guaranteed); and we also have a responsibility to our spouse so prolonged abstinence is not an option either. Can someone please clarify this matter to me? What is the extent of and contemplated by the term “contraception” mentioned here? Thanks

[@syedhasanahmed3514]

Hi, please read Pius XII's 29th October 1951 speech titled " DISCORSO DI SUA SANTITÀ PIO PP. XII ALLE PARTECIPANTI AL CONGRESSO DELLA UNIONE CATTOLICA ITALIANA OSTETRICHE" on the Vatican website, you can use Chrome translate to reliably convert it to English for your reading purpose; the same for his second speech on the matter on the 27th November of the same year titled "DISCORSO DI SUA SANTITÀ PIO PP. XII AI PARTECIPANTI AL CONVEGNO DEL «FRONTE DELLA FAMIGLIA » E DELLA FEDERAZIONE DELLE ASSOCIAZIONI DELLE FAMIGLIE". These two documents serve as excellent background for understanding Paul VI's document 'Humanae vitae', and the three together will help you to get a grasp of the answers to your questions. Good luck.

[@freda7961]

Thanks for pointing me to the right direction. But are these binding and infallible teachings? Will certainly read them when I get the time to do so.

[@Zematus737]

I have come to understand it as two check boxes. 1.the act of love is generative to life. 2. It is for bonding. If you're pregnant, I would presume both boxes are checked green, since there already is a new life in the process of generation. If you pull out, or willfully disrupt, hinder or block one of the two, you are sinning by violating the call by the generative will (The Holy Spirit of life) and/or are committing an act of lust rather than an act of love. Being responsible isn't conforming to the limitations and burdens our society and culture lay upon you. Be productive and trust in God, who feeds the birds and clothes the lilies of the field. What is expected of you as a citizen, when children are the highest joy? And instilling in them a sense of duty, integrity and fear of God is the bedrock of society.

[@freda7961]

@@Zematus737 Thanks, but sorry, I don't understand. By pulling out ("the act of love generative to life" for example), you mean to say that includes withdrawal? So it's a sin to have sexual intercourse with your wife, if you don't intend to procreate as of that moment? So if we plan to have a baby only after 2 years, we won't have sex for 2 years also? Or if we already have 3 children and we think anything more than that is too much, we shouldn't have sex ever again? Please tell me that I'm misunderstanding this, as it's already past midnight here. I don't want to come across as rude or argumentative here. I seriously just want to know, because me and my wife don't have plans of getting her pregnant yet, especially with the pandemic and all. We don't want to unnecessarily expose ourselves, INCLUDING the would-be child, when we have to go to the hospital monthly or during labor. Wouldn't that be rather morally evil by itself if we do so, knowing that to be the case? It's not just us who would be unduly exposed here, but also the child. With the welfare of the child in mind, are we living an unholy life by practicing withdrawal, or even by using condom at times to be sure?

[@syedhasanahmed3514]

@@freda7961 Humanae vitae is infallible in its teaching. The teachings of Pius XII from beforehand are not intrinsically infallible as acts of teaching, but are contextual, and provide interpretive authority (and are thus binding) over the meaning of humanae vitae. See below. A. By being a doctrine taught consistently by many pontiffs in many acts, the doctrine is infallible not from the specific guidance of one act but the general guidance by which we identify infallibility in consistent teaching. infallibility is not restricted to extraordinary acts of the magisterium (ex cathedra definitions and ecumenical councils); the Ordinary magisterium is also infallible, and this is the teaching of the Church which is consistent in many acts by the Pope and the bishops in their state of dispersion around the world (as opposed to in the state of assembly, at a Council). B. We are bound to assent to fallible teachings of the Magisterium, not only infallible ones - although we are not bound to fallible teachings with the assent of faith, but with a lower level of assent called the religious submission of will and intellect. See Canons 747-755 in the CIC, the 1863 papal letter tuas libenter by Pius IX (cited by the same pontiff in his 1864 list of papally condemned statements named the 'syllabus of errors', see condemned proposition 22) John Paul II's 1998 motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem, the CDF's 1998 document titled 'Professio fidei' (profession of faith for the english document), and the CDF's 1990 instruction 'Donum veritatis' which covers the matter of the spirit of dissent. For more information regarding (B), read the translation of an excerpt from Cdl Louis Billot's Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi titled "on subjection to non-infallible decrees of the Magisterium" - there is a free translation available for this on the lumenscholasticum wordpress blog.

[@edenjohnson3342]

WOW!!!!!

[@aggelos8256]

Good video keep it up, music is cringe tho

[@leonoradompor8706]

Stop abortions****

[@frederickanderson1860]

7 sacredness not biblical. Similar to the Jewish 7 noadic laws for gentile converts to the Torah

[@jamesmorrissey2297]

True enough, yet John was no friend of his Jewish brothers. We all have are thorns.

[@peter-johan6939]

Contraception is the greatest evil of our time. The root of so many ills.

[@martinpattison8916]

Are you being serious?

[@martinpattison8916]

@GGLTM P Not evil at all.

[@leonoradompor8706]

I am The Virgin Mary, I am Prolife*****

[@anthonythistle1465]

What a load of rubbish

[@randomango2789]

Birth Control methods during the time of Chrysostom was often abortifacient. It’s very dishonest to not bring up that historical context when speaking about a man who lived almost 2,000 years ago. Let’s also keep in mind that they had very limited knowledge on what sperm and eggs were.

[@jcarterjoseph9066]

Give me a break!