My point as the OP was to show how the decisiveness demanded of Jesus to choose life or death, light ovr darkness, holines over sin, …and to be ready to give an account for one’s choices and investment of what was entrusted to each individual, too ofetn seems lost on many Catholics. How many Catholics are really seeking and striving to know, accept and live the truth, and if not to the peril of their eternal soul.The Catechism teaches that while hell is a real existential possibility for each individual, the Church does not officially say who is and is not in hell. In the end God will judge, or rather, each of us will judge ourselves, whether we will be embraced in God’s infinite love and mercy, or we endure eternal pain of self-isolation by cutting ourselves off from God.
While it is fairly easy for a well-formed conscience to see what is good and evil in moral acts, we do not know fully what motivates that person to act in that way. Someone who deals drugs might be doing so because there is no other way for them (in their eyes) to support their family. Someone who murders someone may do so because that person abused their child, and the abuser was exonerated in a miscarriage of justice. A mother who aborts her child may do so under extreme pressure from an irresponsible boyfriend, harsh family, or selfish husband. Only God can justly show a person what their merits and life deserved, when he opens the chambers of their memory, unlocks their heart, and shows the motions of the will to the good and evil in life.
God’s mercy does not exceed His justice.Hence reproof for sin should be done not with the aim of mere punishment in mind, but rather in the spirit of mercy and compassion which aims to bring a person away from death and back to life, which is God. Even penance is meant to be medicinal, rather than simply judicial and legal, in character to the sinner.
One of people I know, a Catholic, said he is going to use contraception when he gets married. He claims that he loves God and that his faith is very important for him. I asked him if it does’t bother him that he is going to commit a serious sin. He said that he is not afraid as it is God who is to judge him…Considering the dismal statistics about the number of Catholic couples who use ABC during their fertile years, do these folks actually expect to hear “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25 :14-33)
Pardon me…I know that I’m jumping into the middle of this, but…If you read the context in which I made the statement, you would find that my comments had to do with the fact that the conscience of many, if not most of the last two generations have been made up very thoroughly; it has been a combination of being taught, directly or indirectly, that the Church is only “one more voice”, and that ABC is perfectly ok; not only perfectly ok, but bordering on something close to a responsiblity to use. Byt the time they are marrying age (18, although few today get married before their mid 20’s), they have had maybe all of 1 hour in their lives about the Church teaching, which they had already been taught was “nicve but not necessary”. I would submit that they are not at fault for what they ahve been repeatedly taught - the belief in the irrelevance of Church teaching in this area - if for no other reason than their youth. Your quote is not salient to the point. It would be so, for one who has been taught all along of the need to follow Church teaching; but the reality of what kids have been taught is much different.
Pricilla Ann,Pardon me…I know that I’m jumping into the middle of this, but…
You make one especially valid point…that we were taught directly or indirectly that ABC is “not only perfectly ok, but bordering on something close to a responsibility to use”. I am 49 years old and this is what I was taught and what I believed and practiced. When we married in 1982 and took pre-marriage classes at our local Catholic parish, NFP was mentioned by the priest only briefly, and with a comment that “it only works if both husband and wife are absolutely committed to it”. ABC was never mentioned as a “mortal sin”. We had not heard good things about NFP and its reliability, so we felt it was our responsibility to use something that was effective, as I had health issues. We chose the diaphragm since it was easy to use, was safe, and would do no harm if I was already pregnant.
We acted in good conscience with the information we had way back then. How did we sin?
Thank you so much for your kind and reasonable words. My husband and I were trying to make responsible choices and simply did the best we could. We couldn’t afford to try NFP on a “trial and error” basis.Pricilla Ann,
I’ve communicated with you in the past about nfp on other threads. I think nfp is a great method, but I am now coming to the conclusion that it may not be right for everyone. Given the situation you describe-and I am not a moral theologian-I would say that you and your husband made the best decision you could with the information you were given and PROBABLY DID NOT SIN.
You seem so troubled over your past in relationship to what you read on these boards regarding nfp and the church’s teaching against contraception. Don’t allow it to bother you. Yesterday is gone. Repent IF you feel the need, but remember, you acted in accordance with the information you were given at the time.
Keep in mind that those who reject contraception and use nfp are also capable of sin in this area as nfp can be used selfishly to avoid pregnancy. To me, what it comes down to is that it is another method of preventing pregnancy. Only in the case of nfp, there is no direct blockage of the egg and sperm. I think many circumstances (such as the one you describe) make whether nfp is a more morally acceptable use of birth control up for debate.
Just my two cents. Hope this helps with the question you end your post with.
I’m 49, so just a few years older than you. We married in 1982; and like you, our PreCana was lacking, especially in the area of sexual issues. We had approximately 20 couples in our class; and I don’t even remember a detailed discussion of sexual issues or birth control. NFP was briefly mentioned, but I think most of us associated it with the old, unreliable Rhythm Method, which was notorious for its failures.Pricsilla, only you can determine if you did not sin.I guess you are saying ignorance and not being given the truthful information is the reason why it wasn’t a sin for you. Figure out whether during the course of using birth control you had acess to the truth or not. That’s the only way you’ll know. I realize things are different now with the internet and more books being available. People have much less excuse for ignorance about church teaching than say people 30 or more years ago. However I know folks who are much older than me I’m 43 who always know the church teaching and read books about the Catholic Faith. They always heard and read news stories about the Catholic Faith especially on the birth control issue. Perhaps you never heard one of those.I guess it truly depends on what acess you had to these things. I was married in 1985 and had a vague idea it was a wrong - never connected the word sin and wrong and was not told directly either . My PreCana was severely lacking as was my own knowledge base of the faith. For some reason I chose to look into it further. But that’s just me and my level of curiosity.
Thank you so much for your kind and reasonable words. My husband and I were trying to make responsible choices and simply did the best we could.
I am so glad I could offer you some consolation. Yes, I agree, you and your husband did the best you could at the time considering the information you were given and your health problems.
We couldn’t afford to try NFP on a “trial and error” basis.
NFP can be difficult and challenging to learn in the beginning (and can continue to present challenges as the years progress, like after childbirth, during perimenopause and menopause, and when illnesses take place, etc. There are times when it can seem like a guessing game: am I fertile now or not? Married couples must be totally commited to the method and be willing to endure the frustrations that might follow. For some, this could actually lead to more problems taking place rather than resulting in growth.
I guess what upsets me about some of the posts on these forums is the attitude that ABC is always a grave sin; and NFP is the only acceptable alternative, with no exceptions.
**Well put. I definitely agree with you here. As I stated in my post, I do think NFP is a great method if one has no trouble charting accurately and I respect the church’s teachings on this subject. But, I think there are certain circumstances in life that merit an alternative. I know many here will disagree with that statement, which is why I said the subject is open to honest, realistic debate. **
In reality, these are decisions that have spiritual, emotional, and serious physical health consequences; and these decisions are between a married couple, their doctor and God.
Right. This is where the individual’s conscience comes into play. I believe a husband and wife can make such decisions in good conscience when they’ve prayed about it and taken into consideration all the aspects that pertain to their situation.
Again, thank you for your compassionate, honest words.
**Your welcome. **
God Bless You!
Based upon what I read from your post it seems like, at the time, you did not have full knowledge making this not a mortal sin.Thank you so much for your kind and reasonable words. My husband and I were trying to make responsible choices and simply did the best we could. We couldn’t afford to try NFP on a “trial and error” basis.
This is where I am going to have to disagree with you. ABC is always a mortal sin…teaching of the Catholic Church or should I say “intrinsically evil”I guess what upsets me about some of the posts on these forums is the attitude that ABC is always a grave sin; and NFP is the only acceptable alternative, with no exceptions.
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
I am not sure what reality this is. True these decisions have a spiritual, emotional and serious physical health consequences, but that does not justify the use of ABC. The use of ABC also has eternal consequences as well. God is in charge of our sexual life, He created sex, He knows all about it. As the Catholic church so beautifully teaches all acts of sexual intercouse must be procreative, open to human life. There are not merely a decision that you and your spouse can sit down at the table over a cup of coffee and decide if you want to use ABC or NFP. According to Catholic teachings this is not a decision that is to be made, by that I mean one is in accordance with the Church, the other puts you in a state of mortal sin.In reality, these are decisions that have spiritual, emotional, and serious physical health consequences; and these decisions are between a married couple, their doctor and God
If you followed your conscience, and did the best you could with the information you had at the time, you did not sin.Pardon me…I know that I’m jumping into the middle of this, but…
You make one especially valid point…that we were taught directly or indirectly that ABC is “not only perfectly ok, but bordering on something close to a responsibility to use”. I am 49 years old and this is what I was taught and what I believed and practiced. When we married in 1982 and took pre-marriage classes at our local Catholic parish, NFP was mentioned by the priest only briefly, and with a comment that “it only works if both husband and wife are absolutely committed to it”. ABC was never mentioned as a “mortal sin”. We had not heard good things about NFP and its reliability, so we felt it was our responsibility to use something that was effective, as I had health issues. We chose the diaphragm since it was easy to use, was safe, and would do no harm if I was already pregnant.
We acted in good conscience with the information we had way back then. How did we sin?
Here’s another…**1783 **Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
These tend to be overlooked by those who “let conscience be their guide” (i.e. use conscience as an excuse for their sinfulness). The moment someone tells me “I’m following my conscience,” I am pretty certain they know the act they’re referring to is sinful.**1865 **Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. ***This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience ***and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.
If you followed your conscience, and did the best you could with the information you had at the time, you did not sin.
Vatican 2 speaks of the primacy of conscience; it was not something brand new in Moral Theology, but certainly an emphasis that had not been there at various times int the past.
The problem was, and still is, that too often people were (or still are being) taught that they had to follos their conscience, but were not taught the other part of the statement; and that is, that we are required to have a correctly formed conscience. That, in other words, is that we need to have a conscience formed to the will of God; and the will of God is most perfectly/correctly stated through the moral guidance of the Church.
Somewhere about 40 years ago we got off track; not the Church itself through the Magisterium, but the leaders and guiders of the Church - those who taught us what the Magisterium had to say. In other words, bishops (particularly in their failure to pay attention to what was being taught “on the street”), priests, theologians, and others who were in postions of influence in moral matters.
The difficulty to an individual comes when they have more information about the matter in which they have made a decision (here, birth control) and they choose, or refuse to consider it. Sin comes, not from the first choice to use birth control (as they were not taught it was wrong), but from refusal to look further when there is information brought to their attention that they need to look at. contemplate, take to the Lord in prayer. and it is not for me, or anyone else in this forum, to determine when and where that point occurs.
From my own experience, however, and to use the words of the Old Testmament, I have found people to be “stiff necked”, and have a “hardness of heart” when confronted with the fact that ABC may in any way be questionable; to put it anoher way, “I already have my mind made up, so please don’t confuse me with the facts!”
It is entirely possible to make a judgement about ABC in innocense, and to continue to make that judgement for a long time. However, the qutestion becomes one of where, and when we are confronted with the fact that the Church says that ABC is intrinsically evil, how do we react? Do we look further into the question, or shut off what we then do not want to hear? These are tough questions.
So, again, if you were not taught the truth, I do not believe that anyone can say you sinned. Do not look back; the greater question is how do you respond to the Gospel call now?
How do I respond to the “Gospel call” now? God knows my heart, and knows that no sin was intended. Aside from that, I’m 49 years old and had to have a hysterectomy 8 years ago, so no further action should be required.If you followed your conscience, and did the best you could with the information you had at the time, you did not sin.
Vatican 2 speaks of the primacy of conscience; it was not something brand new in Moral Theology, but certainly an emphasis that had not been there at various times int the past.
The problem was, and still is, that too often people were (or still are being) taught that they had to follos their conscience, but were not taught the other part of the statement; and that is, that we are required to have a correctly formed conscience. That, in other words, is that we need to have a conscience formed to the will of God; and the will of God is most perfectly/correctly stated through the moral guidance of the Church.
Somewhere about 40 years ago we got off track; not the Church itself through the Magisterium, but the leaders and guiders of the Church - those who taught us what the Magisterium had to say. In other words, bishops (particularly in their failure to pay attention to what was being taught “on the street”), priests, theologians, and others who were in postions of influence in moral matters.
The difficulty to an individual comes when they have more information about the matter in which they have made a decision (here, birth control) and they choose, or refuse to consider it. Sin comes, not from the first choice to use birth control (as they were not taught it was wrong), but from refusal to look further when there is information brought to their attention that they need to look at. contemplate, take to the Lord in prayer. and it is not for me, or anyone else in this forum, to determine when and where that point occurs.
From my own experience, however, and to use the words of the Old Testmament, I have found people to be “stiff necked”, and have a “hardness of heart” when confronted with the fact that ABC may in any way be questionable; to put it anoher way, “I already have my mind made up, so please don’t confuse me with the facts!”
It is entirely possible to make a judgement about ABC in innocense, and to continue to make that judgement for a long time. However, the qutestion becomes one of where, and when we are confronted with the fact that the Church says that ABC is intrinsically evil, how do we react? Do we look further into the question, or shut off what we then do not want to hear? These are tough questions.
So, again, if you were not taught the truth, I do not believe that anyone can say you sinned. Do not look back; the greater question is how do you respond to the Gospel call now?
It sounds like ABC is no longer an issue for you and your husband.How do I respond to the “Gospel call” now? God knows my heart, and knows that no sin was intended. Aside from that, I’m 49 years old and had to have a hysterectomy 8 years ago, so no further action should be required.
Is Theology of the Body considered to have equal authority with scripture? It seems that many here regard it as having supreme authority with regard to sexual issues.It sounds like ABC is no longer an issue for you and your husband.
However, if it were me, I would study what the Church has said (there is a great deal of information available on John Paul 2’s Theology of the Body) and what others who are faithful to the Magisterium have taught (and I am thinking of Janet Smith’s recording “Contraception - Why not?” available from One More Soul.
Just because you are no longer in the middle of the question in your own life does not mean that you have no (name removed by moderator)ut about it in others’ lives; I would hope that you could see the wisdom of the Church teachings, and be able to tell others.
What is past is past. If you did use ABC in good conscience, then there is no sin. If it bothers you about what you did, speak to your confessor, and remember the comment from the Old Testament by God: “I have put all your sins behind My back”. go forward from here. what we are all called to, in Greek, is metanoia - a “turning around”. It is more than just not sinning; it is a call to a change of heart, and a change of direction. That choice is yours; that is, life calls us to live out our lives God-centered, not just “not sinning”.
I don’t generally get into issues of the weight of authority; I am not trying to sidestep the issue, but Scripture doesn’t come right out and say Artificial Birth Control is wrong in a specific statement. Then, again, Scripture doesn’t specifically come out and say that God is Three Persons.Is Theology of the Body considered to have equal authority with scripture? It seems that many here regard it as having supreme authority with regard to sexual issues.
You’re right. Scripture doesn’t come right out and say that Artifical Birth Control is wrong. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to understand ABC being a sin. (Scripture also doesn’t mention the Trinity; however, Scripture does mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so that isn’t hard to understand.)I don’t generally get into issues of the weight of authority; I am not trying to sidestep the issue, but Scripture doesn’t come right out and say Artificial Birth Control is wrong in a specific statement. Then, again, Scripture doesn’t specifically come out and say that God is Three Persons.
Pope John Paul 2 had two doctorates; one in Philosophy and one in Theology, and he was a Philosphy professor until he was made pope. The work entitled Theology of the Body is a series of talks he gave bout the subject while pope, and should be considered part of his exercise of the Magisterial Teaching Office he held as pope. His talks were not personal musings, but a series given publicly as pope.
What makes it so interesting and different is that most work prior to his was based mostly on Scholastic and neo-Scholastic philosophy, which ultimately traces back to Aristotle and his classifications into parts and sub-parts. John Paul’s work, however, was based on Personalism and Phenomenology, which is a very different way of looking at the issues; same conclusions, but very rich, and much less dry than a long talk about Natural Law. I think Christopher West has published several things on the Theology of the Body, which are going to be more readable that John Paul’s work itself.
Hope that helps.
That would be an excellent place.You’re right. Scripture doesn’t come right out and say that Artifical Birth Control is wrong. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to understand ABC being a sin. (Scripture also doesn’t mention the Trinity; however, Scripture does mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so that isn’t hard to understand.)
Maybe I will have to try to actually read Theology of the Body…maybe something by Christopher West would be easier for someone like me to understand. I think there is a Theology of the Body for Beginners…maybe I’d better start there.
You’re right. Scripture doesn’t come right out and say that Artifical Birth Control is wrong. I guess that’s why it’s hard for me to understand ABC being a sin. (Scripture also doesn’t mention the Trinity; however, Scripture does mention the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so that isn’t hard to understand.)
Maybe I will have to try to actually read Theology of the Body…maybe something by Christopher West would be easier for someone like me to understand. I think there is a Theology of the Body for Beginners…maybe I’d better start there.