Fornication or Contraception . . . Which is Worse?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If I’m reading this thread correctly (and its entirely possible I’m not!), it seems that the real question is this:

Which is worse, the use of a good thing to an evil end, or the use of an evil thing to an evil end?

I think that what is required in responding to the question is an agreement on what is evil. For the purposes of argument, I would like to suggest that Augustine’s and Dionysius’ understanding of evil is illucidating here. Evil is not a thing in itself but is, rather, the absence of the good. If we agree that God is Good and that all things were made good by the Good God, then we must agree that it is the nature of things to be good unless interfered with (i.e. sin is against our nature and taints/perverts it). A thing is therefore evil insofar as it lacks the good, and a thing that completely lacks the good would also be completely lacking in existence as being in itself is a good. A purely evil thing cannot, therefore, exist, insofar as it has thingness / being. Nothing is naturally evil.

To use a good thing for an evil end, therefore, is to violate the good of the thing–it is a perversion. But given the understanding of evil above, to use an “evil thing” for an evil end is similar to using a good thing to an evil end insfar as the “evil thing” is a previously corrupted good. To perpetuate the corruption of the good thing is a perversion akin to using a good thing for an evil end. To me, therefore, both options are similarly corrupt and assigning greater condemnation to the one than to the other is a matter of splitting hairs. One may be more culpable if one is the first to corrupt a good, but those who abuse it after share in the original corruption.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Catilieth]

David Zampino:

I
What I “AM” trying to do is to differentiate between an act (contraception) which is, by Church teaching, ALWAYS evil and an act (fornication) which IS EVIL AND WRONG – BUT, rather than being intrinsicially evil in its origin, is evil only in its misuse.

. . .

Actually, your logic is off because contraceptives are objects and as such are morally neutral. A piece of latex, or estrogen and progesteron are not sinful or disordered. They are not immoral. What makes it sinful is how one uses them. If progesterone is used to help maintain a pregnancy, it’s fine. If hormone replacement is used to treat a medical condition (especially if the woman is not fertile) it is a good. So the device/chemical is morally neutral.
What is sinful is the act of taking a morally neutral object and using them for a sinful purpose…contraception.
Likewise, sex is morally neutral. What makes it sinful or good is how one uses it. Fornication is always intrinsically evil.

I could argue that taking something that is intended by God to be a gift, a holy thing and using it to commit grave sin could be considered worse than using something morally neutral to commit sin. But I guess, to my way of looking, dead is dead.

 

[cargopilot]

Genesis315:

They’ll both send you to hell if you die unrepenent, so can we really matter which is worse? (likewise they both cause another person to sin too).

Yup!:yup:

Whether you get an A+ in mortal sin or a D-, either way you have still ‘graduate’ to hell.

 

[David_Zampino]

thistle:

This should have been a short thread. There are no degrees of mortal sin so why is there an ongoing debate. Both fornication and contraception are mortal sins.

Granted – on the eternal scale. However, on the temporal scale, there are degrees of sin – even mortal sins. For example, we don’t put the fornicator in prison for life without parole, like we would a convicted murderer!

Even on the eternal scale, Dante’s hypothesis in “Inferno” was that there were degrees of punishment in hell. Ovbiously, the eternal punishment is the same – permenant separation from God. But if my recollections of Dante are correct, sinners who used a good in an evil manner were punished less graphically than sinners who committed intrinsic evils.

 

[David_Zampino]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

If I’m reading this thread correctly (and its entirely possible I’m not!), it seems that the real question is this:

Which is worse, the use of a good thing to an evil end, or the use of an evil thing to an evil end?

I think that what is required in responding to the question is an agreement on what is evil. For the purposes of argument, I would like to suggest that Augustine’s and Dionysius’ understanding of evil is illucidating here. Evil is not a thing in itself but is, rather, the absence of the good. If we agree that God is Good and that all things were made good by the Good God, then we must agree that it is the nature of things to be good unless interfered with (i.e. sin is against our nature and taints/perverts it). A thing is therefore evil insofar as it lacks the good, and a thing that completely lacks the good would also be completely lacking in existence as being in itself is a good. A purely evil thing cannot, therefore, exist, insofar as it has thingness / being. Nothing is naturally evil.

To use a good thing for an evil end, therefore, is to violate the good of the thing–it is a perversion. But given the understanding of evil above, to use an “evil thing” for an evil end is similar to using a good thing to an evil end insfar as the “evil thing” is a previously corrupted good. To perpetuate the corruption of the good thing is a perversion akin to using a good thing for an evil end. To me, therefore, both options are similarly corrupt and assigning greater condemnation to the one than to the other is a matter of splitting hairs. One may be more culpable if one is the first to corrupt a good, but those who abuse it after share in the original corruption.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Actually, very good thoughts. This was the sort of conversation I was hoping to generate in the first place. Maybe the question should involve “culpability”. The Gospel clearly teaches that those who commit a sin, but did not know that they were sinning would be punished less severely than those who knew that they were sinning.

 

[RCCDefender]

thistle:

Now you’ve got me. I’m a coke man!!

Coke over Pepsi any day!!! Pepsi is nasty!!

 

[st_ignatius110]

Contraception is an intrinsically disordered act that violates the procreative aspect of marriage.

Not to mention the fact that almost every contraception can destroy an unborn child.

 

[Convert97]

Both are a misuse of the conjugal act. One can create life outside of marriage, which is an abuse of the woman and the child. The other separates sex from children and can lead to the separation of the couple. Both separate us from God. This is a question that shouldn’t even be considered.