How do people who use contraception go to confession?

[twoangels]

• Confess, just not mention it, and hope the priest doesn’t bring it up?
• Say that they use it, but they do not consider it a mortal sin, or any sin at all?
• Or just not go? Possibly for several years?

With hormonal contraception, the question is whether she is on it for a medical reason (principle of double effect) or whether she is using it as a contraception. If she has a medically valid reason to be on contraception, it is not a sin and she doesn’t need to confess it.

If she is on it for contraceptive reasons (treating the healthy function of her female body as a disease), then she can confess that she’s on contraception. The priest would then tell her that to make a good act of contrition, she needs to get off of it.

For non-hormonal methods (whether are not they are used in conjunction with NFP or not), then it’s like confessing any other sin. “I used a contraceptive device X times” or if you want to be more blunt “I used a condom and spermicide X times.”

The expectation should be that spiritual growth is gradual and that people generally confess the same sins over and over as there are only so many sins to confess.

Currently, I’m having trouble accepting that masturbation is a sin. I accept it only intellectually on the authority of the Church which means just barely. I find that my motivation to avoid is rooted in “I just don’t want to humiliate myself and confess this again.” So I’m going to confess a lot of the other sins all surrounding the sexual sin and hope I get one of the priest’s at the parish who actually counsels rather than the priest who says the same thing about Christ’s forgiveness every time.

 

[twoangels]

And one priest who went the other direction saying NFP was not good to use.

NFP works if the woman has a healthy regular cycle and is over the post partum people. There’s limited research on the post partum period and she has a lot of false fertility signs as her body tries to get back to the return of her cycles. So you have a lot of extra abstinence of “I could ovulate because the hormones are present but I don’t know if I will.” type of abstinence where the abstinence can last for months.

I truly wonder how many Catholic women even make it past the post partum period to have the approx seven days of abstinence a month. It can still be sexually frustrating though, but I personally find the pressure to use the infertile days harder than the abstinence. I think the real temptation is to either indulge in alternative sexually climatic acts or to use barriers as a back up to abstinence. In which case, if you are avoiding pregnancy, you may be having to confess those sins as “I committed X sin Y amount of times.”

But I think there are those who think that the way to deal with the temptation to commit sexual sins is to error on the side of not practicing prudence which is at the core of the principle of responsible parenthood.

 

[Psalm30]

Yes, I think having had five C-sections, with the possibility of having to undergo a sixth one, pretty much indicates that NFP or even total abstinence is called for, and a priest who won’t let the couple use NFP is going way “over the line”. The poster who had these five C-sections assured me that she didn’t find my observation offensive. If a woman wishes to have her abdomen cut open time and again, and to give birth in a way that nature never intended, perhaps that is her prerogative, but if I were an obstetrician, I’d really have to recommend not falling pregnant again. And I don’t think I’d be the only one.

I will concede that a priest would be in the wrong to tell a woman who had five C-sections that using NFP would be a mortal sin. But still, you are looking for an objective reason for someone to use NFP, and even five C-sections is not an objective reason to use NFP. I believe at least one other poster mentioned that he and his wife did not use NFP to avoid pregnancy even after a life threatening diagnosis. It is still up to the couple to discern.

That’s not what Pius XII said in his allocution to the Italian midwives. Actually, I think he pretty much covered what I would like to see the Church reiterate as far as “reasons you could use NFP”, but people generally don’t know that anymore, because very few people under the age of 60 comprehend that a pope named Pius XII even existed. I would welcome a decision from the Church as to whether a couple even has to have a reason to use NFP aside from “we just want to”.

There is a broad list of reasons that covers a lot of ground. When all is said and done, the decision is up to the couple.

And I’m not sure anyone does anything “because they want to.” Any basic behavioral psychology course will mention that behavior reflects a need, even if it’s in the subconscious and the person exhibiting the behavior doesn’t realize what that need is.

Somebody has to do it.

If the Church herself does not do it, what leads you to believe that she expects anyone else to do it?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

even other flesh-oriented sins such as thrill-seeking (“adrenaline junkies”) and inordinate attachment to music and dance, could fall into that category.

Well, maybe they could be thought of this way, and maybe they couldn’t be. I have known of young people who absolutely, positively could not get through a weekend without a constant barrage of loud, earsplitting, discordant, chest-pumping heavy metal, techno, and so on — and this does produce physical reactions (including the unintended “reaction” of ruining their hearing for life). There are people who “just have to” dance — it’s a compulsion, they can’t not dance — and keep it up for hours and hours, totally losing themselves in the music, the flashing lights, possibly even fueled by illicit and unhealthy drugs — think rave parties. There are people for whom life is worthless and stultifying unless they can get their adrenaline fix. These all pertain in some way to the flesh, do they not? And does not any kind of physical addiction pertain to the flesh, and if disordered, become a “sin of the flesh”? I think so.

Somebody has to do it.

I can only refer you to Humanae vitae, and to the various pleadings Paul VI made to bishops, priests, faithful, doctors, and so on. That indeed tells me that “the Church expects” it to be taught and commented upon. There are times when someone has to “step into the breach”, even without having been asked to do so. Happens in secular life all the time. No reason it can’t or shouldn’t happen in religious matters.

Just because there is a silence, doesn’t mean there should be a silence.

Crickets.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

With hormonal contraception, the question is whether she is on it for a medical reason (principle of double effect) or whether she is using it as a contraception. If she has a medically valid reason to be on contraception, it is not a sin and she doesn’t need to confess it.

Then she’s not contracepting, pure and simple. The contraceptive effect is tolerated but not wanted.

Currently, I’m having trouble accepting that masturbation is a sin. I accept it only intellectually on the authority of the Church which means just barely

I shy away from discussing this sin on CAF, as it could be interpreted as taking a prurient interest in the sexuality of unmarried young people. Briefly put, the principles remain the same. Objectively grave sin, but for obvious reasons, there is ample reason to question full willful consent, when someone acknowledges it is sinful and is trying to overcome it. A priest bringing it up in confession, without the penitent first having mentioned it, could be branded a pervert or worse — our society has its daggers sharpened and at the ready for priests of whom there is even a hint of impropriety.

This is a sin that can easily be committed in a spontaneous fit of passion. In this respect it differs from contraception. With the possibly exception of coitus interruptus — a partner might “freak out” at the last second and say “no, we can’t do this, we can’t risk another child” — contraception is typically not a sin that one can commit spontaneously without thinking or willing. People do not go to their doctors, or drive down to the drugstore, in a raging fit of blind lust. It just doesn’t work that way. It takes premeditation and deliberation.

 

[Psalm30]

And does not any kind of physical addiction pertain to the flesh, and if disordered, become a “sin of the flesh”? I think so.

But if the Church does not teach this, why do you believe it?

Same with your comment about tattoos earlier in the thread. If the Church does not teach that getting tattoos is a sin, why do you think it is a sin?

Are you saying that the Church is not correct?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think a lot of them just don’t go, although my pastor is great about telling people to go to confession, I’ve noticed that a lot of people don’t. I’m not judging anyone’s soul, but when a Catholic tells me that they don’t need a priest, they can go “straight to God”, that strikes me as disturbing. (Especially since they don’t seem to understand WHY we go to confession)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And does not any kind of physical addiction pertain to the flesh, and if disordered, become a “sin of the flesh”? I think so.

Does the Church “not teach this”? Does “sin of the flesh” mean any sin where gratification of the flesh and senses — not necessarily sexual — takes place, or it is just a euphemism for sexual sin? Does this mean that gluttony and drunkenness, then, are not sins of the flesh? And if not, then what kind of sin are they? And can we not inordinately indulge the flesh and the senses in other ways, to the point of sin? And if those sins cannot be called “sins of the flesh”, then what kind of sins are they?

Just to clarify for the reader, we usually classify sins as being either of the world, the flesh, or the devil. These can overlap. Are there any sins that don’t fall into one of these three categories? Which ones?

Same with your comment about tattoos earlier in the thread. If the Church does not teach that getting tattoos is a sin, why do you think it is a sin?

Are you saying that the Church is not correct?

There is, to my knowledge, no magisterial teaching that getting or administering tattoos is sinful. I accept the absence of such teaching, and I accept that, as a consequence of that absence, I cannot condemn tattooing as sinful, but I don’t understand why it is not sinful. It seems to me that it is a desecration of the Temple of the Holy Spirit and that it violates Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord.” (DRV), but as regards the latter, this same chapter also condemns eating blood, rounding your hair, or shaving your beard, and we are certainly free to do those things.

I don’t like tattoos, I don’t think God made us these bodies we have so that we can turn around and ink them up indelibly and permanently, and I think our skin — of all races — is a thing of beauty and reflects God’s glory. I will concede that in isolated circumstances, a tattoo might be desirable or even preferred — to mask a deformity or discoloration, to provide “medical alert”-type information, or even to help distinguish multiple siblings## (a tiny unique mark on the heel of each baby’s foot) — but generally speaking, I can’t see “what’s good about it”. But I have to stop short of condemning tattooing as sinful, because the Church doesn’t condemn it.

I would be interested to see what various moral theologians have had to say about tattoos, if indeed they have spoken of it at all.

##ETA - Clearly I was speaking of identical twins, triplets, etc. — “multiple siblings” wasn’t the best choice of words. They had to use some sort of marking or attire — though not tattoos — to tell the baby Dionne quintuplets apart. I’ve heard of other instances.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Jone’s Moral Theology is silent on tattooing, but he does say this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Removing one’s earlobes is only a venial sin. Let’s all keep that in mind.

 

[Pattylt]

And lobotomy for serious mental illness…but only as a last resort! When was this written?

 

[Psalm30]

The point I’m trying to make is that you yourself disagree with Church teaching on certain matters. Perhaps, then, you can seek to understand why others might have a hard time understanding or following certain teachings on other matters.

I’m in no way saying contraception is not in and of itself sinful. But I think our priest stated very beautifully why it’s a delicate matter that must be treaded carefully. And maybe even why we don’t hear sermons about it from the pulpit on a regular basis? @InThePew you can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Castration is a grave sin when done to preserve a soprano voice.

I wish I knew that years ago.

 

[blackforest]

And lobotomy for serious mental illness…but only as a last resort! When was this written?

1929, when people lacked the understanding of mental illness that we have today. Mental illness, for example, would be a mitigating factor for self-mutilation, e.g. people who cut their wrists.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And lobotomy for serious mental illness…but only as a last resort! When was this written?

Copyright 1951, imprimatur 1955.

The point I’m trying to make is that you yourself disagree with Church teaching on certain matters. Perhaps, then, you can seek to understand why others might have a hard time understanding or following certain teachings on other matters.

I do not disagree with Church teaching on anything. I do not believe the Church has a “teaching” on tattooing. She just maintains silence. As I said above, the Church does not condemn it as sinful, and neither do I. I would like to know if any Catholic moralists besides Fr Jone have written or spoken on it.

I do have some issues with Vatican II, I will admit that, but I am willing to accept the documents when interpreted according to the analogia fidei, and I accept that there can be a “hermeneutic of continuity” (in plain English, the present teaching can be understood as a continuation and further exposition of past teachings). On another issue, I have some difficulties with understanding, for instance, how parties can contract a sacramental marriage if they do not believe that marriage is indissoluble — how can they be said to “intend to do what the Church does”?

But issues and difficulties are not the same as disagreement. Disagreement is “I am right and the Church is wrong”. I do not say this. I say “I do not understand XYZ, but greater minds than mine have gone before me and said that XYZ is true, so I defer to them”. And that same spirit of ultimate deference and obedience is what I expect from someone who has issues or difficulties with the Church’s teaching on contraception. There was a time I struggled with this, though for selfish reasons — “what will this mean for me?” — rather than apologetical ones. My confessor told me “pray to see it the Church’s way”. I did precisely that. In no time at all, mere weeks if I recall correctly, my resistance melted away. The work of the Holy Spirit? I think so. Easiest thing I’ve ever done.

Perhaps it must be “treaded carefully” in the confessional — upon reflection, I think it would suffice for the priest to say something like “you know, many people find it helpful to use those examination of conscience cards you may have seen in the pew while you were waiting, did you get to take a look at one? — if so, can I answer any questions or address any concerns?” — but I do think that much of this silence from the pulpit may have to do with not wanting to deal with the “blowback” some might fear it would create. That fear may be misplaced — I have heard several younger priests reiterate this teaching in the recent past, gently to be sure, in their homilies, and I don’t think anything bad came of it. Just an occasional reminder would suffice. But those occasional reminders are needed.

 

[InThePew]

It is a delicate matter but, in fairness to @HomeschoolDad there are more than a few priests who don’t address it either because it’s too controversial or because they think the church has no business interfering in people’s private lives. Tbh I don’t think I’ve ever directly mentioned it in a homily, most probably because I’m usually trying to preach on the readings of the day. Although I don’t have to confine myself to the readings, let’s just say that there’s a time and a place for everything. As I’ve said before, it has come up in the confessional and appropriate tact and sensitivity was a must. Certainly, the examination of conscience leaflets which HomeschoolDad talks about are a very good idea. It would be hesitant (to say the least) about suggesting sins but referring people to the leaflet would be a good pastoral approach.

 

[AlNg]

I do not think it is “wrong”, i.e., a sin against God, to ask what people say in confession.

I was taught that it is a sin to reveal what is said in confession.

 

[AlNg]

Our Lady of Fatima said that the sins that send more people to hell than any other sins are the sins of the flesh. Was she right or was she wrong?

She could be wrong because private revelations are not infallible, nor is it required that Catholics believe in them.

 

[AlNg]

There is, to my knowledge, no magisterial teaching that getting or administering tattoos is sinful.

Maybe, but i think that the Bible says it is wrong. Lev. 19:28.

 

[Jen7]

It is a delicate matter but, in fairness to @HomeschoolDad there are more than a few priests who don’t address it either because it’s too controversial or because they think the church has no business interfering in people’s private lives.

I think priests might be surprised to know how much lay folks WANT direction here. I can’t tell you how often Mom’s talk about their methods of NFP or contraception. I’m amazed how many ladies in my NO parish are contracepting and sort-of “know” they shouldn’t be but they don’t want to have to be the one to initiate an argument with their husband. They WISH Father would preach something, believing the husband would hear it from a man better than from his wife. I think that sentiment among married women applies to all kinds of 6th commandment sins. It’s a pity more priests won’t support marital chastity and openness to life openly. The issues are left to be private arguments behind closed bedroom doors when really these poor wives shouldn’t have to stand alone. If I had a dollar for every time a woman told me “if only a MAN could tell my husband that! He doesn’t want to hear it from me…”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I do not think it is “wrong”, i.e., a sin against God, to ask what people say in confession.

It is not a sin for the penitent to reveal what is said in confession. I will concede that it might be tacky, or nosy, or rude, to ask someone — but tackiness, nosiness, or rudeness is not necessarily sinful, and even if it were sinful in a given instance (uncharity, self-righteousness, etc.), it is not the same level of sinfulness as a priest breaking the confessional seal (nefas est).

Discussing one’s confession, though, can be problematical. If the priest is accused of having said something, he cannot defend himself.

Our Lady of Fatima said that the sins that send more people to hell than any other sins are the sins of the flesh. Was she right or was she wrong?

Even granting — not conceding — that she may have been wrong, or that the message may not have been authentic, I would then ask the question “all right, if sins of the flesh aren’t the sins that send more people to hell than any others, what kind of sins are?”

Sins of the flesh may not be the worst sins, though sodomy, certainly a sin of the flesh, is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Nonetheless, they seem to be the easiest sins to fall into, and the hardest ones to break with, when one is trying to stop committing them. Any completed sexual activity — sinful or not — brings with it the release of certain chemicals in the body, including oxytocin and endorphins. These are addictive. Very often, the love and esteem of another person, where illicit sex is involved, make it very hard to repudiate these acts — “if I won’t do that, he/she won’t love me anymore and will leave me”. These things make it harder to break with a habitual sin of the flesh than it would be, for instance, to break with a life of petty crime, or telling habitual grave lies to make one’s life easier, or to repudiate hatred of that person you just can’t forgive, both arguably “worse” sins than many sins of the flesh.

There is, to my knowledge, no magisterial teaching that getting or administering tattoos is sinful.

Leviticus 19 contains a whole litany of things that G-d forbade the Jews to do, and which were no longer forbidden under the new covenant. Some argue that tattooing is now allowed because these prohibitions no longer apply.

I think priests might be surprised to know how much lay folks WANT direction here… They WISH Father would preach something. If I had a dollar for every time a woman told me “if only a MAN could tell my husband that! He doesn’t want to hear it from me…”

I think you are definitely on to something here. Thank you for contributing this. I hadn’t thought of it from this angle.