It doesn't make any sense. I have read the Church's official statement, I have had my friends try to explain it to me, I have talked to priests, I have talked to a Bishop, and the Church's view on birth control doesn't make any sense. Now, the abortion pill, that tracks. The ban on that is in line with Catholic teaching, but condoms and other preventative measures, I don't think they follow suit.
The main argument against birth control is that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. Fine, let's go with that. If the true purpose of sex was solely procreation, then the Church's approval of Natural Family Planning, a way of planning when to have sex to avoid pregnancy, would be hypocritical. To this argument, I have most often heard, "Yes but sex isn't solely about procreation, it's about bringing the husband and wife closer together."
Okay, okay, let's go with that. Sex is about procreation and bringing the wife and husband closer together. If that's true, then that kind of punches a hole in the "birth control is wrong because sex is about procreation" thing. The next most common response I get to this is that "but Natural Family Planning leaves some opportunity for failure." Which is a fair statement, but according to the official church teaching, NFP has a failure rate of two percent while, for example, condoms have a failure rate of four percent. If the reason NFP birth control is allowed is because it allows some opportunity for failure, then something like condoms or other preventative measures should also be admitted due to their higher chances of failure.
Some people I've talked to claimed that the reason birth control was against Catholic teaching when compared to NFP is because NFP is natural, while birth control is a man-made device. Once again, it's technically true, but does that really seem like a proper reason to ban it? Ignoring the fact that I doubt our God has an opinion on marital aids if the concept of man-made devices being introduced into sex is the principal reason behind it, then there isn't much reason coitus interruptus or "pulling out" should also be against Church teaching. On that note, I refuse to believe that "pulling out" violates the spirit of the marital act, but purposefully timing the female body to avoid kids doesn't.
One of the last statements I tend to hear about contraception is that it can ruin the family and lessen the bonds between husband and wife. Personally speaking, the past arguments have some weight behind them, but this last one really seems to be grasping at straws. I've heard a plethora of reasons people have gotten divorce, and the reasons listed are usually money, children, illness, or religion. I've yet to see a couple divorced because they decided to use condoms or birth control.
60 years ago, Pope Paul VI commissioned a study on birth control with 58 bishops and cardinals in study including the Polish Bishop Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Pall II. This study, "The Study of Problems of Population, Family, and Birth," deliberated for two years in league with scientists and theologians to determine that it was in line with Catholic teaching to allow birth control. However, Pope Paul VI backed down at the last minute to the outrage, and frank dismissal, of men, bishops, cardinals, and the faithful.
If the Church is going to take a stance on something as controversial, debatable, and eroding to its authority as birth control, then they need to have a clear, concise, and reasonable stance against it.
Recommended for you
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Politics and Activism![Jenna Pizzi and her mom smiling by a waterfront with a historic ship in the background.]()
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
