Simple question?

Quote: Nareed

Thus first your actions should not violate the rights of other people. And we can go on from there.

Secondly, we should not violate natural law that is the same for all human beings. And we can go on from there.

Quote: Dalex64

My experience shows me that I am correct. Now what?

We can use reason to explain why we think contraception helped someone you know and was the absolute best way for them to avoid pregnancy for a good reason. If they were using the pill we can pretty much say that this was not the best thing for the woman. You are pretty clear in your support for condoms and we can ask is that really the best solution and most helpful for the marriage?
Instead, in the cases I have known the elimination of contraception was a blessing for the health of the woman and increased the communication and respect of the spouses. I don't see anything you can point to that would be negative.

Quote:

I really don't see the difference to god by only having sex when a woman is not fertile (NFP) and having sex with a woman when a woman is fertile and using a condom. Both of these are open to the possibility of conception. The intention in both cases is not to get pregnant. Both people have to agree whether or not birth control is going to be used, each and every time they have sex.

I would suggest to read Humanae Vitae it answers your question.

Quote: FrGamble

What is it about us that makes it unnatural to fly? We have an amazing intellect that desires to fly for lots of reasons, do you see something wrong with that? Does it hurt us at all to fly?

You took the easy part of the problem. It does hurt us to go into space. It has definite bad effects on the human body.

It also fails the natural part.

Catholics against space travel? If not why not?

Quote: rxwine

You took the easy part of the problem. It does hurt us to go into space. It has definite bad effects on the human body.

It also fails the natural part.

Catholics against space travel? If not why not?

You're just being silly. There is nothing unnatural about wearing a special suit and exploring the great unknown, in fact who doesn't get excited about the possibility. You are not correctly understanding natural law and making strawmen and absurd arguments.

Quote: FrGamble

You're just being silly. There is nothing unnatural about wearing a special suit and exploring the great unknown, in fact who doesn't get excited about the possibility. You are not correctly understanding natural law and making strawmen and absurd arguments.

Well, if it's okay to pursue a goal, and wearing a suit is not an issue, wearing a condom is not a problem.

You say it's okay for a married couple to try to avoid pregnancy without a special cover, did you not?.

Quote: rxwine

Well, if it's okay to pursue a goal, and wearing a suit is not an issue, wearing a condom is not a problem.

You say it's okay for a married couple to try to avoid pregnancy without a special cover, did you not?.

Ha, I guess I walked into that one.

One suit protects someone and helps them function normally. The other "suit" blocks a healthy natural process and puts a barrier between a loved ones.

I have read it, and I have read an analysis of it.

Unusual for wikipedia, they have a high level analysis of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_vitae
And a report on the pontifical commission on birth control
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control
A large group that after much consideration issued a majority opinion that the church's position on the issue should be changed,
And then Humanae Vitae was written in which the Pope affirmed the position of the church, that 82% of american catholics now disagree with.

Looking at those articles, HV is a big cause of dissent within the church and some of the regional sub-organizations within the church.

Sure, reasons are given, and the reasons don't even seem to convince most catholics.

I mean, I can give you a reason for almost anything. It doesn't mean that people will agree with the basis for the reason, the "why" for the "why" and that is the case for me here.

Then there is the fact that there is no basis in scripture for this policy. I've seen several sites which claim that there is, but when you go and read it for yourself you see that there is an awful lot of assumption, filling in of gaps, and 'creative interpretations' to arrive at their conclusions. For every explanation there is a counter-explaination somewhere else.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium

It is easy to see some of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
I learned about it in my youth, going to Presbyterian educational things, but I understand more of it now. This doesn't have much to do with contraception, and originally I thought it was all about corruption, but see the factors of sola scriptura and sola fida now. That didn't really sink in before.

Quote: FrGamble

The other "suit" blocks a healthy natural process and puts a barrier between a loved ones.

Since food is a gift from god, I hope Catholicism bans utensils, and ya'll eat with your hands. Surely you're impinging on the blessed joy of direct contact with food by using utensils.

When your god is tired of being barbaric, he is apparently pointless and petty. More evidence your god is probably invented by men as he is a lot like them.

Quote: FrGamble

What is it about us that makes it unnatural to fly? We have an amazing intellect that desires to fly for lots of reasons, do you see something wrong with that? Does it hurt us at all to fly?

Let's see:

The strength of cosmic and solar radiation at the typical jet flying altitude is higher than even at places like Mex City, as there's less atmosphere to shield you from it. This has small but negative effects on frequent fliers.

The lower air pressure and humidity levels inside a modern jet bring on exhaustion faster and can lead to dehydration. In addition your sense of taste functions differently, too, which is why airline food is hard to get right.

There are a plethora of dangers, internal and external to a plane, which can bring it down. This is rare because aeronautical engineers have done a fantastic job safeguarding against them. But the dangers are still there, as we've seen from accidents like AF447 and plenty others. In particular taking off and landing are the most dangerous moments of every trip, even when conditions are good and the plane functions exactly as designed. A minor misstep spells doom for everyone aboard.

Now about space:

The human body is adapted to the constant presence of weight. In weightless conditions, the body does a fair but limited job in adapting to the changed conditions. Unfortunately these adaptations are rather deleterious to one's health. Bones lose mineral density, making them brittle. The heart shrinks, because it has less work to do; this is a problem when returning to Earth. Indigestion and reflux are common problem because the lack of weight keeps stomach acids and contents freely floating rather than settled in place.

Radiation is a major issue, requiring special shielding which only goes so far. With current shielding and given the limitations of lifting materials just into low Earth orbit (LEO), a trip to Mars would mean death by radiation poisoning for all concerned. One of the limitations of current shielding, is that it stops primary radiation by creating secondary radiation. The latter is less dangerous, but it's not good for you.

Some problems can be partially countered by vigorous exercise, but this means spending hours each day keeping the heart and bones in order. This reduces productivity in several ways. But the counter is only partial.

Then there's severe vertigo, insomnia, loss of appetite and assorted other maladies related to these.

Not only is flight and space travel not natural, it's not very safe either.

This is perfectly fine. We derive major benefits from regular flying, and space offers limitless possibilities and expanded scope for knowledge and science. But there are tradeoffs involved, such as those found in things like the pill.

BTW, driving isn't natural, either.

Oh, and in both flight and space, our inherent sense of movement fails completely. If you drive and reduce the gas feed to the engine, you'll move slower. In flight if you do the same thing, you will lose altitude and gain vertical speed at an alarming negative rate of climb. That's just for starters.

In space if you want to catch up to something ahead of you, you need to lose energy in one form to gain a speed advantage over the object you pursue. If you gain energy by speeding up, you'll fall behind faster.

So there.

Quote: FrGamble

Secondly, we should not violate natural law that is the same for all human beings.

I've said this before: it is not possible to violate natural laws. It's a metaphysical impossibility. You can no more violate the second law of thermodynamics, or Newton's laws of motion, than you can fly to the Moon by hitching a Saturn V rocket to a hummingbird and yelling "mush!"

Why say one should not do what cannot be done at all?