Contraception use during fornication

  • Thread starter Thread starter kptrs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
In 1968, within 24 hours, a full page ad appeared in the New York Times signed by Catholic theologians that went against what the Pope was teaching, far beyond their authority as theologians. They claimed artificial contraception was OK in marriage.
Click to expand...
Honestly, they should have been excommunicated for that.
 
I don’t dispute any of that. And while I agree that contraception violates natural law, perhaps it would help advance the discussion if you could articulate how contraceptive behavior violates natural law in unmarried people.

A few years ago, there was some discussion on CAF as to whether a woman who had been raped could try to avoid becoming pregnant by her attacker so long as she had not ovulated and there was no chance a baby had already been conceived or whether such an attempt (by douching, trying to wash away sperm, taking a medication to postpone ovulation, etc) would be sinful. What do you think?
 
They should have, but their attempt to create division and scandal, plus confusion, was now part of the message, among others, being sowed by a group of Catholic dissidents who were beginning their attack from inside the Church. Strange things happened after Vatican II. Since I was there, most people were very trusting, which was taken advantage of. Our trust was abused. We respected authority, especially Church authority, a lot. They knew that sending mixed messages would cause problems.
 
Last edited:
That is definitely wrong. There is no Church teaching that supports this.
 
kptrs said:
I’m sure there is a wide variety of opinions on this, but if we could please stick to official Church teaching, that would be great. Does the use of contraception while fornicating constitute another sin in addition to the act of fornication?
Click to expand...
It applies to husband and wife, in the Catechism (to total reciprocal self-giving). However the specific method of contraception outside of married conjugal relations could be abortive which is another sin (thou shalt not kill).

Catechism 2370 … 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. …
 
Last edited:
(name removed by moderator), I’m on my phone so I can’t see which of my posts you’re responding to, but I agree with you.
 
nodito said:
I don’t dispute any of that. And while I agree that contraception violates natural law, perhaps it would help advance the discussion if you could articulate how contraceptive behavior violates natural law in unmarried people.
Click to expand...
If you accept the Rule, the burden is on you to justify the exception. It goes against the Natural Law for a couple to seek an abortion, objectively wrong regardless of their marital status. Whether it is a mortal sin is of course a different matter, like with any act.

Intentional homosexual actions are against the Natural Law. There is no exception possible, whether the person is married in the eyes of the Church, or “married” in the law. If married in a valid marriage, that raises other concerns, but does not affect the fact that it is objectively against the Natural Law, regardless of marital status. Whether it is sinful, or a mortal sin, is a separate question, like with all acts.
 
It is a sin right from the beginning, and to ask if is alright to go ahead and commit another sin, well I really. believe you know the answer to that and you are trying to justify what you already no is wrong.,I pray that if this is an actual situation the ones involved will realize that what their doing is not only wrong, but they are hurting the Heart of our Merciful Jesus.
 
That is definitely wrong. There is no Church teaching that supports this.
 
“Disordered” does not necessarily go against the Natural Law. There is another layer of moral importance here that you are blurring. The reason I emphasize this is that there is a huge population of Catholics that sees some (minor) evil in fornication, but no moral implications in contraception.

The logical implication, which many Catholics have gone on to accept, is that gay marriage is less bad than unmarried gay sex. We are drowning today in the “lesser evils”.

We can’t abandon the Natural Law issue.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Deacon. Good to know that theologians have kicked the idea around.

I’m pretty sure there are situations where 2 people were going to fornicate but one of them didn’t have or wouldn’t use protection so the other one refused to go through with it. Interesting case of the failure to commit sin B preventing the occurrence of sin A.

If I were the Church, I wouldn’t touch this issue with a ten-foot pole either. Any way they try to address it carries a large risk of coming out wrong.
 
The act of intercourse between a man and a woman are for the intention of having children anything that gets in the way of that is a moral sin including masturbation.
The CCC 2368 and 2396 backs this up.
 
I would say first that I don’t see it as an exception to say that unmarried individuals can’t be guilty of the sin of contraception because I think the marital act is essential to understanding what contraception is.

The short version natural law argument would look something like this: the purpose of sex is to bond and make babies. Sex must be reserved to marriage because it is only within marriage that spouses should be bound together and that children should be conceived. This is because babies need a mom and a dad who are committed to each other and to the child. Contraception violates this dual purpose of sex and hence violates natural law. Extramarital sex has no design/purpose for the flourishing of the human person. So it does not make sense to speak of our rendering it sterile as violating the purpose of that act.
 
Commenter, what say you on the question of whether a woman who has been raped may morally try to avoid pregnancy by rinsing off sperm or doing something similar?
 
Of course it’s a sin. In fact, it’d probably make it even worse because the main reason for intimate acts is to create new people and contraception prevents that.
 
If a couple who are in a non-commited relationship have sex without using ABC, there is a reasonable probability of conception for them. Does that probability carry the same gravity as them using artificial birth control to prevent conception?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
“Disordered” does not necessarily go against the Natural Law.
Click to expand...
If something is properly ordered it cannot violate natural law; that is, it will be ordered in accord with its nature. Philosophically, if something is disordered then by definition it violates natural law.
 
True they are disordered. That is not to say they do nor or cannot still have an inherent dual procreative and unituve function - at least in heterosexual couples. The number of children being born out of wedlock is testimony to.that. Nor is it to say that contraception which divorces the unitive from the procreative is not atill a perversion of the design of sex even when the additional perversion of being extramarital is added.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top