Is Fornication and Using Contraceptives a Venial or Mortal Sin?

[catholicsem]

To conceive while fornicating is also a Mortal sin. It goes against marriage, family and God’s design for a holy structured society. The offspring have no identity. Over time, much incest takes place due to multiple sirings by the same father and different mothers. As these offspring reach puberty; go to school; meet schoolmates of the opposite sex in the same age group unbeknownst to many commit fornication with their kin and often conceive. And it goes on.

Obviously, sins of the flesh trawl more souls to Hell than any other sin.

To conceive cannot be a sin in any case. The act of fornication is evil, but conception can never be. Also, that’s an awful lot of assumptions with no basis. You can’t assume that just because a child is conceived through fornication it will grow up to be anything like what you described. And that is one huge assumption to say that incest will somehow automatically play a factor in all this. Besides, those conclusions really add nothing necessary to the argument against premarital sex and contraception.

 

[catholicsem]

While that is true, I have to say that when I found out my 14-y.o. son had sex (yes…14 ), I was happy that he also committed the sin of using contraception. If he had told me “Dad, I sinned by having sex with my girlfriend, but you will be happy to know I didn’t also commit the sin of using a condom,” I would have probably been very worried about his capability for reason.

BTW…he deeply regrets his actions (he is 17 now), and actually said “I ruined my life.” I had to give him a hug and console him, so he would understand that he didn’t ruin his life. He made a grave error, and he has now learned from it.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I must heartily disagree with your opinion on the outcome of the matter. The fact that his girlfriend didn’t get pregnant in no way justifies the use of a condom. It is never ok to commit such a grave act. Yes, it would have put a serious hardship on both your son and his girlfriend, as well as the child (had one been conceived), but this cannot be grounds for justification for contraception. In every case it would have been better (as far as one’s soul is concerned) to have conceived than to have contracepted.

However, I’m glad to hear your son has had a change of heart. That is a real blessing…thanks be to God!

 

[rlg94086]

I understand where you’re coming from, but I must heartily disagree with your opinion on the outcome of the matter. The fact that his girlfriend didn’t get pregnant in no way justifies the use of a condom. It is never ok to commit such a grave act. Yes, it would have put a serious hardship on both your son and his girlfriend, as well as the child (had one been conceived), but this cannot be grounds for justification for contraception. In every case it would have been better (as far as one’s soul is concerned) to have conceived than to have contracepted.

However, I’m glad to hear your son has had a change of heart. That is a real blessing…thanks be to God!

I understand what you are saying, but I heartily disagree. If someone is committing the mortal sin of fornication, but thinks “ooh…I wouldn’t want to use a condom, because that is a mortal sin” it is completely illogical. You are already committing a mortal sin by fornicating!! I would think my son was an idiot, if he felt that contraception was a worse sin than fornication. I’m sorry, but that is just a fact. I’m not saying that contraception isn’t a sin…of course it is, but give me a break. Some common sense is in order here.

 

[mercygate]

I understand what you are saying, but I heartily disagree. If someone is committing the mortal sin of fornication, but thinks “ooh…I wouldn’t want to use a condom, because that is a mortal sin” it is completely illogical. You are already committing a mortal sin by fornicating!! I would think my son was an idiot, if he felt that contraception was a worse sin than fornication. I’m sorry, but that is just a fact. I’m not saying that contraception isn’t a sin…of course it is, but give me a break. Some common sense is in order here.

Many a Catholic girl in the generation before contraceptives were available OTC was conned into unprotected sex by careless guys, who wouldn’t commit the sin of contraception but were perfectly willing to commit the sin of fornication.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

To conceive cannot be a sin in any case. The act of fornication is evil, but conception can never be. Also, that’s an awful lot of assumptions with no basis. You can’t assume that just because a child is conceived through fornication it will grow up to be anything like what you described. And that is one huge assumption to say that incest will somehow automatically play a factor in all this. Besides, those conclusions really add nothing necessary to the argument against premarital sex and contraception.

There is such a thing as “children born of sin.”

 

[brianwalden]

Here’s my $.02 if it means anything.

Fornication is mortal sin, plain and simple. I think we all agree on that.

In my opinion since the act is already mortally sinful, the decision to use contraception becomes more an issue of prudence than morals. I don’t know if there’s an objective answer; it depends on the situation and the reasons for doing it. I would think that a vast majority of people who fornicate use contraception in order to be able to keep fornicating without consequence. In this case using contraception is only making their situation worse. In other cases where the contraception isn’t necessarily being used as enabler, it may be worse to not use contraception and bring a soul into this world without a stable family. In either case, even if the decision concerning contraception is the prudent one, I would never call it morally good.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Read: JOHN Ch. 9: 1-3. {paraphrasing} There was a blind man from birth. His disciples asked Him, “Who has sinned, this man or his parents that he should be born blind?”

Jesus replied that the man’s blindness was for this day and occasion not for his or his parents’ sin.

Jesus did NOT refute that births can come from the sins of the parents. This particular case was unique in that it was in God’s plan to glorify His Son.

There is such a thing as childrten “born out of sin.”

 

[rlg94086]

Read: JOHN Ch. 9: 1-3. {paraphrasing} There was a blind man from birth. His disciples asked Him, “Who has sinned, this man or his parents that he should be born blind?”

Jesus replied that the man’s blindness was for this day and occasion not for his or his parents’ sin.

Jesus did NOT refute that births can come from the sins of the parents. This particular case was unique in that it was in God’s plan to glorify His Son.

There is such a thing as childrten “born out of sin.”

John,

I don’t think anyone disagrees with you.

 

[rlg94086]

Here’s my $.02 if it means anything.

Fornication is mortal sin, plain and simple. I think we all agree on that.

In my opinion since the act is already mortally sinful, the decision to use contraception becomes more an issue of prudence than morals. I don’t know if there’s an objective answer; it depends on the situation and the reasons for doing it. I would think that a vast majority of people who fornicate use contraception in order to be able to keep fornicating without consequence. In this case using contraception is only making their situation worse. In other cases where the contraception isn’t necessarily being used as enabler, it may be worse to not use contraception and bring a soul into this world without a stable family. In either case, even if the decision concerning contraception is the prudent one, I would never call it morally good.

I’ll see your $0.02 and raise you a nickel.

A very astute observation. Yes, prudence is the word, and I also would never consider contraception morally good. However, I think if one is going to commit sexual sin, it would be prudent to commit the sin of contracepting at the same time. Of course, my preference would be for my son (or anyone) to avoid both sins. Then, the question of contrecepting would be moot.

 

[catholicsem]

I understand what you are saying, but I heartily disagree. If someone is committing the mortal sin of fornication, but thinks “ooh…I wouldn’t want to use a condom, because that is a mortal sin” it is completely illogical. You are already committing a mortal sin by fornicating!! I would think my son was an idiot, if he felt that contraception was a worse sin than fornication. I’m sorry, but that is just a fact. I’m not saying that contraception isn’t a sin…of course it is, but give me a break. Some common sense is in order here.

Well of course, it wouldn’t make sense for someone to think twice about using a condom because it’s wrong while at the same time still fornicating. That’s not my point though. My point is that using a condom is not an issue of common sense but of grave sin. No situation or consequences can justify the use of a condom in that situation. Also, beware of thinking that just because one mortal sin is committed that another one is no big deal (I’m not accusing you of this, but your statement “you are already committing a mortal sin” is suggestive of that). If I know I’m in the state of mortal sin, I should still make every effort to not commit another.

 

[catholicsem]

I’ll see your $0.02 and raise you a nickel.

A very astute observation. Yes, prudence is the word, and I also would never consider contraception morally good. However, I think if one is going to commit sexual sin, it would be prudent to commit the sin of contracepting at the same time. Of course, my preference would be for my son (or anyone) to avoid both sins. Then, the question of contrecepting would be moot.

This is not an issue of prudence at all. Prudence is a virtue and can never lead to sin. You’re judging the act based on it’s possible consequences and that is wrong. This issue should be black and white: fornication is always wrong and contraception is always wrong. In no given situation can either of the two be justified or morally acceptable. Also, in no situation can you say, “well, I’ve already sinned mortally so what’s one more mortal sin if it’ll lessen the physical consequences I have to face.” That’s a slippery slope argument.

 

[catholicsem]

Read: JOHN Ch. 9: 1-3. {paraphrasing} There was a blind man from birth. His disciples asked Him, “Who has sinned, this man or his parents that he should be born blind?”

Jesus replied that the man’s blindness was for this day and occasion not for his or his parents’ sin.

Jesus did NOT refute that births can come from the sins of the parents. This particular case was unique in that it was in God’s plan to glorify His Son.

There is such a thing as childrten “born out of sin.”

I agree with this, but my point was that it is not the conception itself but the act of fornication which is the sin. The child is “born out of sin” because he was conceived through fornication.

 

[brianwalden]

This is not an issue of prudence at all. Prudence is a virtue and can never lead to sin. You’re judging the act based on it’s possible consequences and that is wrong. This issue should be black and white: fornication is always wrong and contraception is always wrong. In no given situation can either of the two be justified or morally acceptable. Also, in no situation can you say, “well, I’ve already sinned mortally so what’s one more mortal sin if it’ll lessen the physical consequences I have to face.” That’s a slippery slope argument.

Sorry, caholicsem, I didn’t mean prudence in sense of the theological virtue. That’s my fault for choosing a word with more than one meaning. Maybe the correct term is to say that it’s a political decision - as in there’s not really a “right” answer (other than to not fornicate in the first place) so we must choose the best course of action given the circumstances.

You’re equation is a little off. While contraception is always wrong within marriage, it isn’t intrinsically evil. Rape victims for example have recourse to it. But given that we’re talking about consensual sex, I think we can say it’s always wrong for the course of this discussion. So we have fornication is always wrong and contraception (within fornication) is always wrong. But wait a minute, isn’t being procreative with someone who isn’t your spouse also always wrong? Now we have a problem. Either you have a contraceptive mentality or you have a procreative mentality - they’re mutually exclusive. And they’re both always wrong during fornication.

Sounds like it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So here’s my question to you: Why do you assume that the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being open to life outside of wedlock.” any better off than the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being closed to life outside of wedlock?” In fact, one could almost make the argument that it’s better to use contraception because being closed to life is the proper relationship with someone who is not your spouse. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that there’s not one single simple answer to this question - it depends on the circumstances.

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry, caholicsem, I didn’t mean prudence in sense of the theological virtue. That’s my fault for choosing a word with more than one meaning. Maybe the correct term is to say that it’s a political decision - as in there’s not really a “right” answer (other than to not fornicate in the first place) so we must choose the best course of action given the circumstances.

You’re equation is a little off. While contraception is always wrong within marriage, it isn’t intrinsically evil. Rape victims for example have recourse to it. But given that we’re talking about consensual sex, I think we can say it’s always wrong for the course of this discussion. So we have fornication is always wrong and contraception (within fornication) is always wrong. But wait a minute, isn’t being procreative with someone who isn’t your spouse also always wrong? Now we have a problem. Either you have a contraceptive mentality or you have a procreative mentality - they’re mutually exclusive. And they’re both always wrong during fornication.

Sounds like it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So here’s my question to you: Why do you assume that the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being open to life outside of wedlock.” any better off than the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being closed to life outside of wedlock?” In fact, one could almost make the argument that it’s better to use contraception because being closed to life is the proper relationship with someone who is not your spouse. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that there’s not one single simple answer to this question - it depends on the circumstances.

I would like to add one small caveat. I have only been talking about condoms, but I think a distinction can be made regarding contraceptive methods with abortifcant effect. That would be to me a graver sin, since you are talking about potentially killing a human life. I would not claim that a person who is committing the mortal sin of fornication should resort to the much graver sin of abortion.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Fornicators using a contraceptive/condom/morning after/etc. is not a sin of the “marriage bed.” A conjugal act between husband and wife with a contraceptive is a sin of the flesh and mortal.

Fornicators commit a mortal sin by the act in and of itself. The “contraceptive” is merely an affirmation that it is illicit and against God. “Conjugal” and “fornication” are the same but different.

The “sameness” is the parties can lose their immortal souls if gone unrepented.

 

[rlg94086]

Fornicators using a contraceptive/condom/morning after/etc. is not a sin of the “marriage bed.” A conjugal act between husband and wife with a contraceptive is a sin of the flesh and mortal.

Fornicators commit a mortal sin by the act in and of itself. The “contraceptive” is merely an affirmation that it is illicit and against God. “Conjugal” and “fornication” are the same but different.

The “sameness” is the parties can lose their immortal souls if gone unrepented.

Very well stated, John. Again, the only thing I would differentiate is considering a condom and morning after pill (or other abortive method) as equivalent. While they are both mortal sins, an abortive method is graver in my understanding because the individual is also potentially killing another human being.

To use an anaology (that will no doubt get torn apart, as all analogies are on CAF ): If a person robbed a store and while doing it shot the shopkeeper in the leg, he would have committed two mortal sins. If the same person robbed a store and killed the shopkeeper, it would be a much graver situation.

To me, the condom is equivalent to shooting the guy in the leg, whereas the morning after pill is equivalent to killing him.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I agree with this, but my point was that it is not the conception itself but the act of fornication which is the sin. The child is “born out of sin” because he was conceived through fornication.

No problem. You are right.

I’ll take it one step further. If a person (male or female) carries contraceptives on their person for use in the event of a possible sexual encounter they are committing a sin of “INTENT.”
Local government officials and schoolboard members that hand out condoms also sin in a vicarious way. They encourage the sin of fornication and for every fornication committed with the use of a condom handed out by a schoolboard member THAT MEMBER has a Mortal sin.

When they stand before Almighty God fot judgment there wioll be NO “political correctness.” The act of distribution stands on its own. There are no “layers of distance” by one or the other.

There will be no lawyers or advocacy groups to intercede. No ACLU or similar organs. It will be only Heaven or Hell.

 

[catholicsem]

Sorry, caholicsem, I didn’t mean prudence in sense of the theological virtue. That’s my fault for choosing a word with more than one meaning. Maybe the correct term is to say that it’s a political decision - as in there’s not really a “right” answer (other than to not fornicate in the first place) so we must choose the best course of action given the circumstances.

You’re equation is a little off. While contraception is always wrong within marriage, it isn’t intrinsically evil. Rape victims for example have recourse to it. But given that we’re talking about consensual sex, I think we can say it’s always wrong for the course of this discussion. So we have fornication is always wrong and contraception (within fornication) is always wrong. But wait a minute, isn’t being procreative with someone who isn’t your spouse also always wrong? Now we have a problem. Either you have a contraceptive mentality or you have a procreative mentality - they’re mutually exclusive. And they’re both always wrong during fornication.

Sounds like it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So here’s my question to you: Why do you assume that the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being open to life outside of wedlock.” any better off than the person who says, “Oh well I’m already fornicating so what’s one more sin of being closed to life outside of wedlock?” In fact, one could almost make the argument that it’s better to use contraception because being closed to life is the proper relationship with someone who is not your spouse. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that there’s not one single simple answer to this question - it depends on the circumstances.

I wanted to respond to this before, but I didn’t have the resources to back up what I was saying until now (I didn’t want this to be a back and forth argument of personal opinions). Pope Paul VI in the document Humanae Vitae states that contraception is an intrinsic evil that by its very nature contradicts the moral order. It also says this:

“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”

and later on:

“Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.”

-Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI

Since contraception is an intrinsic evil, that would rule out recourse to it even in the case of rape.

 

[Brendan]

Fornication using a contraceptive CANNOT make a Mortal sin MORE Mortal. Fornication is a mortal sin from the instant it takes place…and also BEFORE it takes place…

But the offense againt God is more grevious. The ‘Mortal’ part refers to the death of the soul, which occurs in any mortal sin. The punishment due to the offence can vary.

In much that same way as a rapist murdering their victim is no more ‘mortal’ than a rape alone, the two combined are a more grevious offence against God.

Likewise, fornication with contraception is more grevious than fornication alone.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

But the offense againt God is more grevious. The ‘Mortal’ part refers to the death of the soul, which occurs in any mortal sin. The punishment due to the offence can vary.

In much that same way as a rapist murdering their victim is no more ‘mortal’ than a rape alone, the two combined are a more grevious offence against God.

Likewise, fornication with contraception is more grevious than fornication alone.

I believe as you do. But what seems to me as regarding “rape” or some such violation of another there is a deeper and more numerous presence of evil in the perpetrator. It could be a matter of demonic possession. And that, to me, is a more clogged pathway for contrition. How often do we see convicted rapists/killers say, “I found God…” or things of that nature. There can be a motive in that pronouncement such as avoiding a stern punishment. Only God knows for sure.