Is ABC a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nabooru
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nabooru

Guest
I understand that the RCC has never released a definite list of mortal sins. I’ve seen a few online on various websites, though, and interestingly none of them included ABC. Perhaps I was just looking at the wrong ones, or ABC qualifies as a venial sin?
 
Nabooru said:
I understand that the RCC has never released a definite list of mortal sins.
Click to expand...
Well, I would say this is an oversimplification.

First, of course, you cannot possibly issue such a list because there are infinite ways to sin and people thinking up new ones all the time.

At the same time, there is nothing new under the sun, and therefore we certainly can know what sins are mortal because God gave us the Decalogue and the Church to assist us in evaluating the ever changing conditions and innovations of the times against the Decalogue.

Mortal sins are those that consist of grave matter. Grave matter are those sins against the Decalogue.

I suggest reading the entire section of the Catechism on Life In Christ (Section 3) but particularly the Ten Commandments.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Nabooru said:
I’ve seen a few online on various websites, though, and interestingly none of them included ABC.
Click to expand...
Can’t really say what you might have been looking at. Perhaps an examination of conscience. Such a list is meant to help a penitent prepare for Confession by giving them a guide as they review the Ten Commandments for areas of sinfulness. Contraception should certainly be listed, but I’ve seen various examinations that had it and others that did not list it. Could depend upon the audience for whom the list was intended.
Nabooru said:
ABC qualifies as a venial sin?
Click to expand...
Contraception is grave matter and a sin against the Sixth Commandment.
 
Nabooru said:
I understand that the RCC has never released a definite list of mortal sins. I’ve seen a few online on various websites, though, and interestingly none of them included ABC. Perhaps I was just looking at the wrong ones, or ABC qualifies as a venial sin?
Click to expand...
ABC, in its many forms, is unnatural. It interrupts the possibility for new life, at is very least, but it kills a fertilized egg at its worst.

If life starts at conception, anything that allows ovulation without allowing implantation, is disposing of an egg, possibly a fertilized egg (new life). This is how most hormone treatments, like the pill, work.
 
Nabooru said:
I understand that the RCC has never released a definite list of mortal sins. I’ve seen a few online on various websites, though, and interestingly none of them included ABC. Perhaps I was just looking at the wrong ones, or ABC qualifies as a venial sin?
Click to expand...
It depends- it can be either.

You have to have all 3 for a mortal sin:
  1. Grave matter. ABC does fall under this…
  2. Full knowledge. Meaning you have to be aware that this is a grave sin. For example, my years as a Protestant I was not aware that it was a sin.
  3. You must be fully free.
 
ABC is grave matter. To do so freely and knowledgeably will cause your soul to be in jeopardy. This is pretty common sense stuff.
 
Just to clarify. Sometimes people are unsure what ABC is, equating it just with taking the Pill.

Using the Pill is not a sin in itself - it can be used for medical reasons.
But it is a sin when used by a sexually-active woman as it might cause an abortion.
 
paperwight66 said:
Just to clarify. Sometimes people are unsure what ABC is, equating it just with taking the Pill.

Using the Pill is not a sin in itself - it can be used for medical reasons.
But it is a sin when used by a sexually-active woman as it might cause an abortion.
Click to expand...
Technically what you say is true. However there are two important points many who are quick to say this overlook.
  1. many times the pill is the first and only thing considered for the treatment of a medical condition when in a large majority of these cases something else can treat the condition.
    Napro technology has many answers for these things. So do some pro life doctors.
  2. When applying the principal of double effect make sure you understand the gravity of the situation. If treating a separate medical condition one could technically engage in the marital embrace it still could not only prevent but cause harm or kill a baby. Think of it this way, if being on the pill and having sex would potentially kill a live baby in your house no one would do it.
 
If used with full knowledge and consent, it is a grave matter.
 
1ke said:
Well, I would say this is an oversimplification.

First, of course, you cannot possibly issue such a list because there are infinite ways to sin and people thinking up new ones all the time.

At the same time, there is nothing new under the sun, and therefore we certainly can know what sins are mortal because God gave us the Decalogue and the Church to assist us in evaluating the ever changing conditions and innovations of the times against the Decalogue.

Mortal sins are those that consist of grave matter. Grave matter are those sins against the Decalogue.

I suggest reading the entire section of the Catechism on Life In Christ (Section 3) but particularly the Ten Commandments.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Can’t really say what you might have been looking at. Perhaps an examination of conscience. Such a list is meant to help a penitent prepare for Confession by giving them a guide as they review the Ten Commandments for areas of sinfulness. Contraception should certainly be listed, but I’ve seen various examinations that had it and others that did not list it. Could depend upon the audience for whom the list was intended.

Contraception is grave matter and a sin against the Sixth Commandment.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
How does it violate the sixth commandment? The idea that contraception is invariably abortion makes me think of when scientologists claim psychiatry only makes people crazier. Yes, it may be true that very, very rarely, an egg might pass and get fertilized, then pass out the body without implanting. But this happens naturally all the time. I read somewhere - I’ll have to find it - that only a quarter or so of fertilized eggs actually implant. So how would one know whether the failure to implant is a contraceptive or natural occurence? Besides, the whole point of most contraception is to prevent the egg from being fertilized anyway.
 
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives some summaries:
  1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?
2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
  1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
  1. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
 
Nabooru said:
How does it violate the sixth commandment? The idea that contraception is invariably abortion makes me think of when scientologists claim psychiatry only makes people crazier. Yes, it may be true that very, very rarely, an egg might pass and get fertilized, then pass out the body without implanting. But this happens naturally all the time. I read somewhere - I’ll have to find it - that only a quarter or so of fertilized eggs actually implant. So how would one know whether the failure to implant is a contraceptive or natural occurence? Besides, the whole point of most contraception is to prevent the egg from being fertilized anyway.
Click to expand...
There’s a big moral difference between natural and artificial. I read somewhere - I’ll also have to find it - that 100% of people die. That doesn’t mean that ‘artificial’ death (also known as murder) is EVER okay. Now, I don’t know the science of ABC, but if it is true that it might even rarely cause a fertilized egg not to implant, it’s probably a good moral idea to stay away from it (even if you were to think that non-abortive contraception is okay).
 
Catholic4Christ said:
There’s a big moral difference between natural and artificial.
Click to expand...
The difference is not between “natural” and “artificial” but things that happen in nature and things we do to ourselves or others…etc

(because something is “artificial” does not make it bad…contraception is not gravely evil because it is artificial --but because it is gravely contrary to the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage)
 
Bookcat said:
The difference is not between “natural” and “artificial” but things that happen in nature and things we do to ourselves or others…etc

(because something is “artificial” does not make it bad…contraception is not gravely evil because it is artificial --but because it is gravely contrary to the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage)
Click to expand...
Agreed on all counts - I should have said ‘there’s a big difference between natural BC and artificial BC.’ Semantic mistake on my part.
 
Catholic4Christ said:
Agreed on all counts - I should have said ‘there’s a big difference between natural BC and artificial BC.’ Semantic mistake on my part.
Click to expand...
Better to skip that aspect totally --for it can be inferred (incorrectly) that the it is the natural or artificial that is the difference.

Rather NFP (periodic continence) VS Contraception.
 
Bookcat said:
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives some summaries:
  1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?
2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.
  1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.
  1. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
Click to expand...
Who decided all this, though? It’s not in the Bible, certainly not in the NT. I find the whole theology shaky.
 
Nabooru said:
How does it violate the sixth commandment? The idea that contraception is invariably abortion makes me think of when scientologists claim psychiatry only makes people crazier. Yes, it may be true that very, very rarely, an egg might pass and get fertilized, then pass out the body without implanting. But this happens naturally all the time. I read somewhere - I’ll have to find it - that only a quarter or so of fertilized eggs actually implant. So how would one know whether the failure to implant is a contraceptive or natural occurence? Besides, the whole point of most contraception is to prevent the egg from being fertilized anyway.
Click to expand...
Thou shall not kill is the Fifth Commandment.

Contraception is a sin against the Sixth Commandment. It is a sexual sin against marriage and chastity.
 
Nabooru said:
Who decided all this, though? It’s not in the Bible, certainly not in the NT. I find the whole theology shaky.
Click to expand...
Jesus did not need to re-teach the entire OT, He simply explained it. The NT is a continuation of the OT. The Church uses Genesis 38 and the story of Onan as the direct teaching. There are implied sources, try looking in the CCC for the Church’s official stance. The Theology of the Body, by JPII, is a terrific resource on the Church teaching on contraception.

If some one is trying to figure out a way to make ABC’s morally acceptable, the human mind can do gymnastics to seem justified. As a former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, said in an interview, “The truth does not need to be justified”. If it is true, then you don’t need to figure out a way around it, however, if it seems like one needs to defend or explain their actions, then its probably wrong.🤷

BTW, the idea of “It’s not in the Bible…” is a very poor defense for anything. I would not want to stand in front of Christ and explain any actions in my life with, “It wasn’t in the Bible…”. With knowledge comes responsibility, either you trust the Church on all matters or you don’t trust the Church at all. If Jesus really meant, “What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven”, then you have to trust His Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top