HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations



Contraception is using pills and devices to prevent conception. The Roman Catholic cult regards it as seriously sinful and has done its best to stop the use of condoms in Africa even though this has resulted in millions dying of AIDS. It is clear that the Church has no right to be so dogmatic on such an issue for dogma can stifle the truth. The Church does not want to see if condoms will help which is clear from the fact that a man having once-off sex is expected to do it without a condom and put himself and his partner at risk. It does not care! Some Catholics teach their ban doesnít do any harm but still the fact remains that even if it does they still believe the ban should be.
Even if birth control were a sin, there is no justification or reason in the insistence of the Church that it is as bad as murder and you will go to Hell forever if you die unrepentant of the sin of birth control just like you would for murder. The stance of the Church is extremism and bigotry. The Church could teach that it is venial sin - this is sin that you have to pay for by suffering in Purgatory not a sin so serious that you would suffer punishment for it that never ends and which can never end.
The Church says that sex must be open to life at all times and yet it allows you to marry somebody you know is barren. The hypocrisy is astounding. It says you must let God plan your family. This makes sense if there is a God which shows how dangerous the concept of God is but it means you are not to blame if pregnancy results and great misery happens because of it for it was Godís decision to send the baby. This means if it is up to God it doesnít matter if you use the safe period in which conception is less likely or not. The Church says fertility is a blessing and is natural and not a disease so contraception is wrong and yet it allows you to wear contact lenses instead of getting laser surgery on your eyes even though the laser would be less unnatural. It even lets you have a nose job though there is nothing wrong with irregular features!
Pius XI made in infallible statement in part 54,56 condemning birth control in his encyclical Casti Connubi: ďNo reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may be conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew, any use whatsoever of matrimony used in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sinĒ.
Catholic teaching is that uninterrupted tradition is infallible and any change is heresy. The pope says that he is speaking with the Church and nobody can contradict him so he is speaking infallibly. He says God has guided him and the Church to this decision.
It is one of the heresies of the modern Church that natural family planning is fine for any reason but the actual teaching of the Church is that it is only allowed in grave and extreme cases! The permitting of the natural method of the Catholic Church was introduced by Pius XII. Tradition was wholly against him. This modification of the teaching was heresy too.
The natural method was only permitted because the encyclical of the previous pope, Pius XI, Casti Connubi was misunderstood. That pope permitted sex if the couple was sterile or too old to reproduce. This permission was misinterpreted without warrant to refer to the natural method in its Rhythm Method form or the use of the safe period. The pope is thought to have written the following about those married couples who had sex during the infertile time of the month. His encyclical says: ďNor are these considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forthĒ Pope Pius XI. Time had to mean old age. Certain defects refers to sterility. It is stretching the meaning to think he meant the safe period with the intent to avoid children. It contradicts what he said that nothing whatsoever must be done to prevent conception. He did not mean the safe period because it is not fully safe. He speaks of a condition in which new life cannot be brought forth so he is not thinking of it at all.
He says nothing of having sex while knowing a baby cannot come. Back then there was no real way to be very sure. All he is saying is that if a couple have sex when it may be the infertile time, they do not sin. The reason they do not sin is because they donít know the chances of conception and don't intend to avoid conception. They are not sinning as long as they don't mean to prevent conception. The pope gave no impunity from sin to those who had sex while believing a baby couldnít result. If you have sex with your wife and donít know her chances of conceiving when it may be her infertile time there is no sin. That is all he is saying.
Pius XI had no problem with Catholics having sex during the safe period. He just had a problem with them using this period as a form of birth control. He never mentions in the encyclical that that is allowed. The natural method was well known in his day. For him, the birth control he meant included natural and artificial methods.
In 1951, Pope Pius XII, 29th October, said that natural family planning was allowed only when a doctor had decided the wife should have no more babies for it would destroy her health or when the family is afflicted by severe poverty. So the circumstances are very abnormal.
Natural family planning can lead to the same contraceptive mentality that the Church condemns contraception for: the feeling that a baby is a burden and not a gift from God and its conception is to be avoided. With the doctrine that natural family planning is forbidden except in extreme circumstances, at least, you can hold that you really want a baby but canít have one perhaps because another pregnancy could kill the mother.
The Catholic Church and many other Churches claim to care about the family.
If so why do they have no problem providing marriage for immature people, sixteen year olds, and people who may be unsuitable for raising children? They are the people that claim that marriage is for procreation. Where are the courses to prepare couples for children?
The Catholic Church condemns single mothers but nothing was said about Pope Pius IX taking a Jewish boy from his parents and raising him himself. If single parents are so bad then why is the surviving member of a married couple one of whom died prematurely leaving children allowed and encouraged to keep the children?
It is up to each individual couple to decide for themselves if contraception is a bad thing or not in their marriage. The Church tells them to believe it is bad. But belief colours your perception. No marriage is perfect. The Church is encouraging couples to blame contraception for these normal imperfections and problems. And they have to lay loads of blame on it for contraception is supposed to be a very very serious sin. This is psychological manipulation.
If contraception causes problems in marriage, one answer would be for the husband and wife to maybe have plenty of affectionate sessions with no sex or no penetration, or to engage in masturbation sessions in which they watch one another masturbate (the Church says masturbation is a sin) so that they use it less.
But if a husband and wife are intimate friends and intimate parents and not just intimate sexually the problems should not arise. If contraception causes problems they must only be minor.
The Church wants the use of contraception to stop. It wants to stop a couple having the option. If nobody uses condoms, they will disappear from our pharmacies and those who seek them will not find them.
Research shows that young people who are below 17 and who have sex are less likely to use contraception. Church teaching is a dangerous influence on them at their impressionable age. Research shows that young people who are informed by their parents about contraception are more likely to use it. The Church would seek to block their right to know these things. It is so unfair because most young people have sex from 17 to 19.
The Natural Family Planning Method is no use to many teenagers and young women for their menstrual cycles are irregular. There is no way to tell for sure when they are most likely to become pregnant. And teenage stress and exam angst, heavy drinking, sickness, drugs, medication and travel can make periods so irregular that there is no point in trying to figure out when the woman is in danger of pregnancy.

Everybody knows what the Catholic Church thinks about the pill, condoms, intrauterine devices and sterilisation. It says they are all seriously wrong and never ever justified. The Church however allows NPF, natural family planning based on the time during a woman's menstrual cycle when she is unlikely to conceive. The Church says there is a huge moral difference between contraception and natural family planning. It says contraception is suppressing fertility while natural family planning is working with it.
Working with it? Working around it more like! It is still treating fertility as something to be avoided. If that is okay, then contraception can't be wrong . If sex must be open to life, then why not allow condoms for they don't always give 100% protection anyway? Even the Church says that contraception is not a sin if it practiced by people who seriously think that it is acceptable before God. This tells us that it cannot be a sin unless it means people knowingly and evilly treat their fertility as a curse at least for a time. But using NPF doesn't mean you don't have that kind of attitude. Many users will have the attitude. It is the attitude that causes the moral problem for the Church. It is lunacy to say that contraception is wrong for it must always express a bad undesirable attitude.
The Catholic Church teaches that artificial birth control is always immoral even when it is to prevent a husband infecting his wife with the AIDS virus. The idea that contraception is bad has more to do with hatred of sexuality and the desire to see it punished by having unwanted babies than with any real concern for the people who use it or need it. Contraception must be the worst sin possible when it is better if you are having sex to risk your life and bringing sick babies into the world to suffer by neglecting contraception. Nothing is that bad that it can be banned under all circumstances. The Church allows killing in self-defence for heavenís sake!

The Catholic Church holds that all forms of birth control except using the safe period are always seriously wrong and deserve hellfire. Pius XI said all family planning is sinful in 1930. Pius XII said it was all sinful but the natural method in 1951, and on July 25th, 1968, Paul VI said the same in the infamous encyclical, Humanae Vitae. In 1987, Pope John Paul II taught that theologians must never believe that the Church changing her stance on birth control is possible Ė in other words, standing by the teaching is more important than it being right or wrong. The Church admits that it teaches that birth control is always wrong even when the large family cannot be sufficiently or adequately provided for (Question 1331, Radio Replies, Volume 1). The Church even forbids the sterilisation of mentally retarded disabled people who could be forced to commit suicide by pregnancy or who will die if they carry a child (Question 1585 says this by implication, Radio Replies, Vol 1). This is one reason for wishing there was no Roman Catholic God.
The Church says that we eat not primarily for pleasure but to live so sex is primarily for making babies and not for pleasure (Question 1304, Radio Replies, Volume 1). Then why is making babies harder for some than others? I would say that we have no choice but to eat but we do have a choice with sex so having to eat to live does not mean that you have to have sex for babies. The two are different. Living being the main purpose of eating does not mean that the main purpose of sex has to always be having babies. We eat for pleasure. We do not eat curries and crisps to live. We donít need them just healthy foods. Life and strength are by-products of this enjoyment. We eat these "bad" foods principally for enjoyment. Also we have birthday parties and wedding dinners not just for eating but to celebrate an occasion and promote fellowship among one another. If eating food for enjoyment is not wrong then sex just for recreation cannot be wrong either. What good is life without pleasure? We eat for pleasure and to live so that we will have more pleasure. The person who will be dead in a few hours is not eating to live and are we to say that he should not be allowed to eat? Are we to condemn the child who eats a candy bar though the candy is nutritionally useless? Eating for pleasure is good and so sex for pleasure is good.
If God put testicles on your dog, are you not defying God if you get the dog neutered? Is that not denying that the testicles were a gift from God? Many deaf people and many blind people say their problem is a blessing. It must be a sin then for them to get a hearing aid and surgery to restore eyesight if that is the case. The Church says that fertility is a gift not an ailment so contraception is wrong and implies ingratitude towards God. Since being deaf or blind is an ailment it is okay to do something to remedy it. But maybe fertility is an ailment. Maybe those who find it hard to conceive are what was intended by nature. Just because most people are very fertile does not mean that this fertility is what we should call normal. If you feel your good hearing is an ailment then that is what it is. It depends on how you feel about it. But here we have the Catholic Church ignoring this fact to decree a blanket condemnation of treating fertility as an ailment.
And using contraception is not declaring fertility to be an ailment. That is like saying that if you have sturdy legs and don't do much walking that you are declaring that your strength in your legs is an ailment!!!!
Eating is more important than procreating because if we didnít eat nobody would procreate. It follows then that eating for pleasure must be a far more graver and unnatural sin than contraception! I wish the pope would be consistent and teach this but he knows he doesnít want to look like a fool. The inconsistency shows that the Church is just paying lip service when it speaks about sex being a wonderful gift from God.
The Church says that using the condom violates the integrity of the sex act. In other words, it distorts it. If it is wrong and unnatural to use a condom during sex then it is wrong to be fed intravenously. Such feeding then would be a violation of the act of eating.
The Catholic Church claims to have the gift of infallibility which means that when the Church intends to, it gives a doctrine without error due to the protection of the Holy Spirit which must be believed in by the faithful on pain of excommunication and eternal damnation. The only rule is that infallible doctrines must not contradict the past doctrines and doctrines always adhered to by the Church are regarded as being without error. The wickedness of contraception is one of the few doctrines that the Church has always adhered to. Since Catholics only use infallibility to defend tradition and define it as divinely revealed when it is questioned this teaching must be infallible for the absence of a definition in this case is only to do with neglect not with doubt about the doctrine.
It is disturbing how the Church claims to speak with authority on birth-control and to know that it is bad for us even without being able to foresee the exact statistics about how good or bad it will be in the long run and it is not able to speak with authority on other things. It was never able to tell us if thalidomide, television and many other things would be better or worse in the long run. The Church is just being inhuman.

The Church was against birth control probably because it was supposed that each sperm was a person and to waste semen was mass murder. The allegedly divinely inspired tradition is unreliable when it mistook birth control for murder. Sex would be wrong except for children though it is impossible to see how it could ever be right when it results in more murders than lives. But the murder theory was not the only reason. Tradition always said that sex for love and pleasure and not for procreation was evil and was slightly sinful even for procreation. Logically, when sex is always bad it must be badder than bad when it is just for love or fun. St Augustine was horrified by anybody having sex during pregnancy! Also, it could be that even if the Church was against contraception for the wrong reason before, it can be against it even after realising this for a different reason and that new reason could become authoritative tradition because it was the first opinion held and closest to the time of the apostles. The present-day Church is tradition too.

Believing the murder theory did not stop the Church from allowing sex without precautions being taken to ensure that as many pregnancies as possible were made with the sperm and as little as possible was used. She did not command that anyone who wasted sperm be put to death.
The more reasons the Church gives in opposition to contraception, the more ridiculous and insane and irresponsible the Church sounds.

Rational arguments against contraception do not work. But that does not stop the learned philosophers and theologians from employing them.

It is said that it is better to let God plan your family for he is so wise instead of trying to prevent conception. (Those who say this then deny that God has planned it when a girl gets pregnant out of marriage! Oh the hypocrisy!) But you could tell a sick man on this logic that it is wiser for him to keep away from doctors and hospitals and to trust in God than to get medical attention. If we should trust in God alone concerning family planning then we should do it in everything else. It is no use to object that God would not let a baby be conceived unless he had a purpose for it and that that makes a difference for he is supposed to have a purpose for everybody who has life in them. If Catholics trust God to plan their families then what are they using the natural method of birth prevention for? They donít believe their argument at all! Some might reply that they are using a period in the month when God has no desire to produce a child and he lets them have sex so they donít trust God any less. But if that is true, then why canít somebody using condoms say that condoms are gifts from God for he has no desire to produce a child? If using condoms is mistrust then so is the natural method.
The Church says that contraception contradicts the whole body language of the sex act and turns it into a lie. The man gives his body to the woman expressing that he gives himself selflessly to her and she does the same when she gives him her body. To use contraception implies holding back. But there has to be limitations. Even the rule of love your neighbour as yourself says that. The man and woman therefore would be doing wrong if they give all and keep nothing for themselves. The man loves the woman as himself and the woman loves the man as herself. Because everybody has different lives, different needs and tastes you canít serve everybody the same way. Because of differing circumstances sometimes the couple will only be loving one another as themselves if they use contraception. The body language of sex is that the man and woman seek pleasure through one another and in a way that will enhance their lives and do no harm. It is ridiculous to say that a man and woman having sex who do not want a child should have sex that is open to life, that is not self-giving but abuse. The body language of sex requires contraception in such cases. The body language implies the people should want to be together and to find joy in the sex. There wonít be much joy if the sex is open to an unwanted child or a child that will be destined to inherit some awful genetic disease!
The Catholic doctrine that sex that is open to bringing children into the world when it is known the children will not live or die of AIDS or the birth will kill the mother is holy is horrendous. That is not self-giving or love but hatred and evil and irresponsible.
If sex is the body language of eternal self-giving then why didnít God program animals to tend towards monogamy?
A lot of things could be interpreted as the language of self-giving not just sex. When you give your time and your body and yourself to work for an employer you are giving yourself. If sex means you are giving yourself this means it even more for work can be worse than marriage and you canít have a marriage without work and money.
The Church allows you to remarry if your spouse dies. If sex implies the legitimacy of the extreme and puritanical self-giving misery that the Church wants for those who have sex then it is clear that if a man has sex with his wife and she dies he should never marry again because in the body-language of sex he gave his entire self to his dead wife. ďBut she is deadĒ, you might say. But that is not the point. She could be nearly completely brain dead and the man wouldnít be allowed another chance for there is still life in her. But the point is, he gave her himself absolutely to the exclusion of all others. He gave her the most valuable thing he had: himself indicating complete sacrifice. This implicitly means that he cannot legitimately remarry if she dies!
It is tragic that even some people who disagree with the Church on contraception still praise the ideals behind the Churchís thinking. This is worrying because such neurotic and unnatural self-sacrifice could never be praiseworthy.
To claim as the Church does, that contracepting sex is a lie is to accuse all who use it of bad faith. But Catholics may object that they do not judge. When they say that, they mean they judge the act not the person who commits it. So they are accusing them of lying for only persons can lie. Nobody could possibly agree that people have a right to lie to one another through sex so logically it is quite right for the Catholic Church to manipulate the law of the land to outlaw contraception just like it did in Ireland until recently. It would imply that a wife has a duty to separate from her husband on the grounds that he canít be trusted if he has a stronger belief in contraception than she has or if he wants contraception to be used. Then to say we must be tolerant about contraception is to say we must be tolerant and accepting of people who lie to us which makes a laughing stock of belief in right and wrong.

The Church says that artificial birth control is evil for it is unnatural. But so are glasses and clothes. She says that Jesus was born unnaturally from a virgin. The Church then responds that birth control is an unnatural sin and is not like wearing glasses for you wear glasses for there is something wrong with you but birth control is for preventing things from working as they should. But when nature makes your body want sex when it is not the time to have a child there is something wrong with you and you need the contraception. Why isnít it an unnatural sin to wear glasses when you donít need to, say when you are just pottering round the house? We come before nature so we have to go against it all the time to live.
It is against natural law to cut your finger nails. It is against nature to cut your throat. The Church says that the first is neither immoral or moral. It says the second is immoral. It may be forced to admit that something cannot be condemned as morally wrong just because it is against physical nature. So if it wants to condemn birth control it has to argue that it is an unnatural sin on the basis that it is natural law to exercise some self-control. This idea denies that sexual love in marriage is good. It can't be that loving when it needs to be controlled. If the sex is loving then the more sex the better.
The failing to cut your finger nails and keep them tidy can indicate disrespect for yourself and those who see them. The Church lies in making it neither immoral or moral.
Even if birth control were a sin, there is no justification or reason in the insistence of the Church that it is as bad as murder and you will go to Hell forever if you die unrepentant of the sin of birth control just like you would for murder. The stance of the Church is extremism and bigotry. The Church could teach that it is venial sin - this is sin that you have to pay for by suffering in Purgatory not a sin so serious that you would suffer punishment for it that never ends and which can never end.
Natural family planning treats your fertility as if it were something bad or dangerous which is why it lets the couple have sex when the fertility is out of the way. It has that in common with contraception. The Church again is condemning contraception though natural family planning should be condemned too.

You cannot condemn birth control for being unnatural for we have to go against nature all the time to live. Potatoes are for growing. Stones are for lying about and not for making into houses. Those who say that birth control is evil because it is unnatural are stating that natural law is more important than human welfare. We come first.

The Church says that birth control makes men use women for their own pleasure and presumably it makes women use men for pleasure too. So, she wants men to use women to have unwanted children instead. It is worse to treat a woman as a baby-making machine than as a sex object. Nothing makes men use women Ė they donít have to have this manipulative attitude. So the Church is partly forbidding birth control because it is abused that that is unfair. When the Church allows barren couples some of whom wouldnít want children anyway to have sex it is impossible to see how it can argue that sterilised couples are abusing one another when they are having sex.

The Church says that artificial birth control leads to abortion and that makes birth control and even indirectly murderous. The pope, who has to know from his philosophy and training in logic and from his critics that he is wrong, sees the fight against abortion and birth control as one and the same battle. They obviously are not. Birth-control using barrier methods does not mean abortion will be more likely if they fail for you are trying to prevent conception and that does not mean you would want to get rid of a baby if you get pregnant. Birth-control using pills which prevent the embryo implanting should not lead to abortion either if they fail. Why? Because there is a difference between killing some cells by a birth control pill and killing an embryo that is more advanced. Many people who would not have an abortion use the pill. At this point the Church will use statistics to back up her allegations. But no matter what the statistics say it is not the fault of belief in birth-control if people using it will be more inclined to abortion. There would have to be another explanation for the figures. And there are many statistics from research organisations that give a totally different picture from the one the Church wants to give. If people were more careful abortion would not be necessary. People are going to have sex anyway and not allowing them to use contraception is forcing them to use abortion for they will panic if conception results. There would be more abortions and regrets without it. Even if there isnít there shouldnít be and it is still right to encourage contraception for you canít ban things just because people misuse them. The rates of misuse fall and climb all the time anyway so you canít determine morality by looking at the rates.

Using the safe period will lead to abortion the woman does not want but which she will have out of desperation for it is only permitted to be used for grave reasons meaning that if it fails the woman will panic. It should lead to abortion and it does. The fear the woman will feel while using it can only be alleviated by intending to use abortion to rectify the situation. She must secretly intend to abort for there is no other way she can cope.
Some Catholics assert that birth control makes people see the children they have a result of its failure as unfortunate accidents. But seeing children that way would be the fault of the parents and not of contraception. The children would be accidents but once the pregnancies are discovered the parents would start to love and accept the children. They should think that the child is a fortunate accident who was born at the wrong time but who is still welcome. If people really believe that birth control degrades children then they should never allow it and should make the pope oppose the natural method. The natural method is allowed to fail a bit. After all, it is supposed to be open to life should God so will to create life. Anybody trying to avoid children even by contraception could resolve to welcome any baby that comes as a result of the contraception failing.

It is feared by opponents of artificial birth control that it will lead to people losing restraint in sexual matters. God is supposed to help you fight temptation so donít blame birth control. It is true that a person might use contraception to have sex whenever and with whoever he or she wants but that would be abusing contraception. You cannot condemn anything because it is abused. Why donít they complain to God that some people who are not suited to partners have huge sex drives?

The Church says that birth control loosens the marriage bond Ė it makes partners less afraid of going to bed with someone else. But what about the fact that the Church says that Jesus is there to keep marriage together so he can handle that possibility? And when people can do lots of things in bed besides intercourse we see the silliness of the allegation. If there were no contraception there might be loads of married people having oral sex with their extra-marital lovers. If that became the norm and it could, there would be more cheating than there would be with contraception being common. The Church does not condemn oral sex and masturbation and anal sex with the vehemence and vigour that it uses against contraception. They pick on the one sexual sin, contraception. Nobody dies from oral sex or anal sex or masturbation. But people do die from there been no contraception or not using it properly. How warped is this Church?
So the Church wants people to be scared of pregnancy and disease to put them off having forbidden sex. The Church wants people to be afraid to break Godís law, nice. People should do right because they want to and not because pregnancy or something else scares them. What if women use the natural method to have more lovers? They could.
If contraception were used properly and enhanced marriage and prevented disease the Church would still forbid it. Yet it has the nerve to try and cite the failure of contraception at times to prevent pregnancy and to prevent disease to scare people off using it or allowing it or advising it!

It is said that contraception makes illicit sex more likely but the fact is that the fear of pregnancy does not always stop sex happening. The Church believes that sex should be genital to genital and that oral sex and other things are perversions. It prefers unprotected vaginal sex to oral sex for the latter is ďunnaturalĒ. If the Church does not want such ďperversionĒ then why does it force it to happen by banning birth control?

The Church says that pregnancy should be avoided out of the love of God and not out of the fear of pregnancy or what comes after so it cannot forbid birth control on the grounds of deterring people. God only wants what is done for his own sake.

Religious morality only leads to lies and unfairness. Catholicism tries to turn people against the pill with arguments such as what follows. "The pill causes havoc with a woman's body. It could damage her fertility forever. It kills any baby she conceives by preventing implantation. It increases the risk of breast cancer." This conniving cult purposely ignores the fact that there are risks with everything we do. If Catholicism was not trying to manipulate women and society to turn against the pill it would condemn driving a car with a petrol engine and would certainly condemn smoking which does far more harm than the pill ever could. In reality the reasons given have nothing to do with Catholicism banning birth control at all. It is because they won't admit that their faith is wrong. They are trying to make it seem that they prohibit because they care. They are insecure about the reasons for their prohibiting and so they have to use subterfuge.

Is the fact that if you can control peopleís sexuality you can control them in all things, the real reason why the Church bans birth control? The fact that Roman Catholicism allows people who cannot have children to wed says the answer is yes. It does not tell barren or old couples to refrain from sex except when the urge is uncontrollable and may result in adultery as St Augustine would have done.

The Church doesn't mind sex within and babies resulting in a marriage which may not last or one that WILL not last even when the husband and wife know it. It pretends to care. 

The doctrine that contraception is wrong may be dressed up in the robes of charity. But it is actually a woman-hating and dangerous doctrine that gives men the right to procreate through rape. It plainly gives husbands carrying killer sex diseases the right to pass on the disease to their wives and future children by forbidding condoms even then. Contraception like all things human has had some bad results. But the results would be totally horrendous if the Catholic doctrine were followed consistently and in bigger numbers.  Catholicism should believe that birth control is evil - its part of its identity as a religion. Catholicism can't be the true religion if it is wrong about how sinful birth control is. But people should separate from it so that there will be no Catholicism left to believe it. If you belong to or claim to belong to a religion that should believe evil things, then even if it doesn't, you are being evil and supporting evil. A religion that doesn't understand or admit or see how evil it is meant to be is a religion that is being praised for going against itself. It is no compliment to praise it for you are praising ignorance and disobedience. Separate from it.
The pope knows fine well that if you believe in morality there are only two options: This being so, he has no right to order people and must leave them to decide. Instead, without compromise he orders all to believe on God's authority that birth control and using spermicides is always wrong. Though it leads to contradiction, he accepts one when it suits him and when it doesn't he accepts two. He has no right to expect people to believe he condemns in good faith.
The options in any case are:
One, the legalistic idea that actions are wrong in all circumstances, eg changing religion or using contraception.
Two, the idea that it all depends on the situation and the consequences so a woman can use spermicide if she is about to be raped even if contraception is generally wrong etc.
Inhumanly, he chooses one. His true followers do the same. Their duplicity is proven and they must be exposed.