Can contracepting individuals expect to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" when they stand before the Lord?

[setter]

I don’t know. It’s a sin, for sure. I don’t know how God weighs and balances and judges this sin against all the other good and all the other sins we humans commit. …

Really, ABC is a small part of what is demanded of Christians, imho.

The Church is quite clear that use of ABC is serious sin, and willfuly and knowingly committed is mortal sin. It takes only one unrepentant mortal sin to lose sanctifying grace and send one’s soul to hell for all eternity …though ABC sin tends to be more serial than a one time commission.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

My apologies for not being clearer. What I meant was that, for the first time in my life, I will be “stepping out in faith” on being open to life. Raised a Protestant, there was never any teaching that b/c of any form was sinful.
My point was that even though my husband and I have no reason to put limits on the number of children we have, I fear that I might lack faith, and use NFP in a contraceptive manner. My priest’s response to me indicated that he saw no problem with using NFP to limit the amount of children we have, even though we have no reason to do so, as long as we didn’t use any other method than NFP.
But now, given your confusion about my point, perhaps he was equally confused, and we’re all politely saying the same darn thing.

I think that we are reading the same book here, maybe even on the same page. I do not think that with NFP that you should have a fear that you are going to “use NFP in a contraceptive manner.” As I mentioned there are times of the month that you cannot concieve and if you view having sex at that time as being contraceptive then you are wrong. It is not. At that time you are still participating in the marital act that is unitive, uniting you and your husband together and procreative, open to life. NFP is not contraception.

 

[cor]

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) when they stand before the Lord on their personal judgment day? …or the converse “cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness”? The reason I ask, is not to presume to render judgment or discount the infinite mercy of God, but the impression one gets that many lax and dissident Catholics do not consider the reality of having to make an accounting for the “talents” given them to multiply for the kingdom.

I don’t believe the doctrine against contraception is an infallible teaching. The doctrine of Limbo wasn’t infallible and it’s been revisited. For those who doubt it was ever a Church doctrine, read what Jimmy Akin says:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

“That was Church teaching (doctrine). It was not, however, Church dogma, and for some time (centuries, actually), theologians had been entertaining possible ways by which salvation could be achieved for such infants.”

As the teaching of the ordinary magisterium however it is entitled to serious consideration. I believe a Catholic is called to examine all the arguments, pro and con, and come to prayerful, thoughtful decision. If they do this with a clear conscience then God will indeed approve of their conduct at judgment and reward them. The Catechism says it is our conscience that praises or condemns us. God rewards our efforts and desires, not whether we happen to be correct or incorrect.

Even if there were nothing wrong with contraception, I still think NFP is better than using an artificial agent (a drug) to mess around with your body.

 

[dwc]

I don’t know. It’s a sin, for sure. I don’t know how God weighs and balances and judges this sin against all the other good and all the other sins we humans commit. …

Really, ABC is a small part of what is demanded of Christians, imho.
The Church is quite clear that use of ABC is serious sin, and willfuly and knowingly committed is mortal sin. It takes only one unrepentant mortal sin to lose sanctifying grace and send one’s soul to hell for all eternity …though ABC sin tends to be more serial than a one time commission.
*

I don’t disagree with you about ABC being a serious sin, a mortal sin done wilfully and knowingly. My point is the church also clearly and unambiguously teaches that a multitude of other acts are mortal sins if done with knowledge and full consent. The list includes grave matters such as using the Lord’s name lightly or in vain, missing mass, failing to respect the dignity of other people, neglecting spouse, parents or children, pride, arrogance,vanity,selfishness, harboring a grudge, refusing to grant forgiveness,treating others unjustly,failing to practice charity or to help the poor,lying, gossiping … the list goes on and on, and all mortal sins have the same consequence to the sinner.

In my own experience, I sin in many of these ways, and those sins also tend to be repeated, because many are behaviors and attitudes. My point was simply that although it is certainly good not to commit sexual sin, that is not the end all and be all for us as Christians.

 

[setter]

I don’t believe the doctrine against contraception is an infallible teaching. The doctrine of Limbo wasn’t infallible and it’s been revisited. For those who doubt it was ever a Church doctrine, read what Jimmy Akin says:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

The Church’s teaching against ABC has been infallibly proclaimed through the ordinary magisterium and constant teaching of the Church. Here is another CA source that summarizes why the Church’s prohibition against contraception is infallible:

Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.” link

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. (CCC)

“That was Church teaching (doctrine). It was not, however, Church dogma, and for some time (centuries, actually), theologians had been entertaining possible ways by which salvation could be achieved for such infants.”

This is a statement of clarification – nothing has changed about the the doctrine of salvation for not baptised infants.

As the teaching of the ordinary magisterium however it is entitled to serious consideration.

The teaching of the ordinary magisteriun in matters of faith and morals is binding on the faithful. Here a couple CCC excerpts to help round out your understanding of the roleanf formation of conscience in making moral decisions:

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.” The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for. (CCC)

I believe a Catholic is called to examine all the arguments, pro and con, and come to prayerful, thoughtful decision. If they do this with a clear conscience then God will indeed approve of their conduct at judgment and reward them. The Catechism says it is our conscience that praises or condemns us. God rewards our efforts and desires, not whether we happen to be correct or incorrect.

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. (CCC)

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. (CCC)

 

[KCT]

Those that want to do the right thing will want to find out what the right thing is. Those that don’t want to, won’t. I suggest that if the information is available, and the desire to do the right thing is not nurtured and acted upon, culpability is still there. Dan

Some culpability . . . sure. Absolute? Not sure. —KCT

 

[KCT]

This from my confessor! . . . it made me wonder how many Catholics have been given wrong council on this by their priests? And if Catholic priests (God bless them) are poorly informed about Church teachings on contraception, how much more is the general, non-Catholic population?

That’s what I mean about culpability. If someone goes to confession and hears wrong or incomplete info, they’re less culpable.

A priest told me once that how many kids I have is between me and my doctor, not some people in Rome. When Catholics hear this thype of thing repeatedly, why would they assume it’s wrong and go hunting for more info? —KCT

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

That’s what I mean about culpability. If someone goes to confession and hears wrong or incomplete info, they’re less culpable.

A priest told me once that how many kids I have is between me and my doctor, not some people in Rome.

:tsktsk: :doh2: Not much else I can say other than that. I remember the words of Fr. Larry Richards saying that there are “screwed up priests.” Scary.

When Catholics hear this thype of thing repeatedly, why would they assume it’s wrong and go hunting for more info? —KCT

It is unfortunate that some priests seem to me misinformed or tend to create their own agenda. Sorry to keep referring to Fr. Larry, but when he was an associate pastor, newly ordained, at a parish with an older pastor that had been there for many many years, he (Fr. Larry) said the rosary before the first mass of the new year, when the pastor caught wind of this he said “There will be no praying the rosary in MY church!” His church?

 

[cor]

Never in Humanae Vitae are those who think contraception is OK called “heretics” by Paul VI.

 

[setter]

Never in Humanae Vitae are those who think contraception is OK called “heretics” by Paul VI.

…your point?

 

[cor]

…your point?

If he didn’t call them heretics, then they probably aren’t heretics which means that it’s not an infallible teaching (otherwise they would be heretics)

 

[setter]

If he didn’t call them heretics, then they probably aren’t heretics which means that it’s not an infallible teaching (otherwise they would be heretics)

…weak …very weak argument.

 

[fix]

I don’t believe the doctrine against contraception is an infallible teaching.

The Church teaches differently:

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.133
Veritatis splendor

… “Married people should realize that in their behavior they may not simply follow their own fancy but must always be governed by a conscience in conformity with the divine law and be docile to the Church’s Magisterium, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (“Gaudium et Spes”, n. 50b). Thus, in this area, the Pope has an authority derived from his own proper office. With the mandate received from Christ he must teach and (if necessary) authentically interpret the divine law, both natural and supernatural, which must be known and observed in order to attain salvation…

It is Jesus himself who wanted the Pope to have a Magisterium of authority, having entrusted him with the mission of teaching men the truths to be believed and the duties to be fulfilled. In promulgating “Humanae Vitae” Paul VI acted within and by force of this Magisterium. He proposed anew “a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.” Paul VI therefore says: “Let no Catholic be heard to assert that the interpretation of the natural moral law is outside the competence of the church’s Magisterium. It is in fact indisputable, as our Predecessors have many times declared (Pius XI, St. Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII are cited), that Jesus Christ, when he communicated his divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations his commandments (cf. Mt. 28:18029), constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law, the reason being that the natural law declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation” (“Humanae Vitae”, n. 4)…

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Text

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

…weak …very weak argument.

Agreed! Not sure where cor is going with that statement?

Cor - can you explain more?

Are you trying to say that since Humane Viate does not call those that oppose it “heretics” that HV is open for priests to from their own opinion?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I don’t believe the doctrine against contraception is an infallible teaching. …
Even if there were nothing wrong with contraception, I still think NFP is better than using an artificial agent (a drug) to mess around with your body.

Do you realize you appear to contradict yourself in a single post? “Even if there were nothing wrong with contaception… it is a bad thing”. Why do you think the Church teaches that it is wrong? Because God never wants us to endure a bad thing. Because God never wants us to “use an artificial agent (a drug) to mess around with your body”. He loves us too much to tell us that is OK.

As the teaching of the ordinary magisterium however it is entitled to serious consideration. I believe a Catholic is called to examine all the arguments, pro and con, and come to prayerful, thoughtful decision. If they do this with a clear conscience then God will indeed approve of their conduct at judgment and reward them.

What is the intended result (moral end) of contraception? To aritifically separate the pleasure of sex with its physical purpose? What else is there? When we artificially separate the pleausre of any physical act from its natural purpose, how can that be a good thing? An analogy is bulemia. That is simply the action of separating the pleasure of of eating from its intended purpose, to nourish us. Can a bulemic, in good conscience, say that is God’s will for them? No. It is selfish, self-destructive behavior. So is artificial birth control.

God rewards our efforts and desires, not whether we happen to be correct or incorrect.

Not very true. He never rewards efforts or desires that are selfish. (He actually does not reward desires either.) He may reduce our culpability under certain conditions, but we are never rewarded for doing bad things. If that were the case, He would not a just God.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

That’s what I mean about culpability. If someone goes to confession and hears wrong or incomplete info, they’re less culpable. A priest told me once that how many kids I have is between me and my doctor, not some people in Rome. When Catholics hear this thype of thing repeatedly, why would they assume it’s wrong and go hunting for more info? —KCT

KCT, I can see that if we have disagreement over culpability, it is to the degree. And since there are infinite degrees of culpability (it is a continuum) we’ll likely never be precisely picking the same level.

I will answer your last question though. Anyone who hears a priest (who, in his station must be obedient to the authority of the bishops) say that the bishops don’t know what they are talking about, knows that they have to keep looking for the truth, they have not found it yet. Either the priest is right, and his leaders are wrong, and the priest is at least somewhat hypocrital, and the Church is a bogus one. Or the priest is wrong, disobedient, and we need to go looking for real information. Culpability cannot be reduced much when this happens.

I speak from personal experience. I have been told many incorrect things, especially in the privacy of the confessional. When I was at my worst, I selfishly used what I heard to avoid finding and doing good, in spite of what reason was telling me. When I was at my best, I made the effort to find out the facts myself. I think it is clear that God expects us to do the latter.

In summary, reduced culpability, definitely. No culpability, definitely not. Significant culpability, perhaps.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If he didn’t call them heretics, then they probably aren’t heretics which means that it’s not an infallible teaching (otherwise they would be heretics)

Well, you succeed in making me laugh out loud.

Did Christ say the sky was blue? No? Must not be then.

Same error in logic.

Dan

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Well, you succeed in making me laugh out loud.

Did Christ say the sky was blue? No? Must not be then.

Same error in logic.

Dan

:tiphat:

 

[fix]

. Anyone who hears a priest (who, in his station must be obedient to the authority of the bishops) say that the bishops don’t know what they are talking about, knows that they have to keep looking for the truth, they have not found it yet. Either the priest is right, and his leaders are wrong, and the priest is at least somewhat hypocrital, and the Church is a bogus one. Or the priest is wrong, disobedient, and we need to go looking for real information. Culpability cannot be reduced much when this happens.

I have found this topic interesting for a very long time. I like your points and will add something I hope. We know that if a lower authority contradicts a higher authority we must follow the higher authority. So, if a priest contradicts the pope we are bound to follow the pope.

We live in a sophisticated culture. Great access to things like the CCC. We know all manner of silly things like sport trivia and celebrity news why would we think we have no obligation to learn the most basic aspects of our faith?

And, the teaching on contraception is known from the natural law. It is written on our hearts. I understand that can be less clear for a variety of factors, but it is there. Will we each not be judged, partly, on how much effort we took to find the truth?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I guess I am confused by your confusion. NFP is not “Catholic contraception.” NFP can be used to space your children if you have a reason to do so. The core of NFP is that every act of sexual intercourse is unitive and procreative. There are times during the month that the woman cannot get pregnant and the couple can have sex at that time. There are times of the month that the woman can get pregnant and if the couple is not in a position for another child, they can abstain from having sex.

I think too many people do not fully understand what NFP is and they tend to belive that it is only for times of fertility that a couple is “allowed” to have sex. However, that is not the case.

NFP is contraception, although it is not artificial. Artificial contraception is what the Church condemns.