Is Fornication and Using Contraceptives a Venial or Mortal Sin?

[brianwalden]

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.

Catholicsem,

Humanae Vitae states: “Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

It says contraception is intrinsically evil within marriage. Maybe one day the Magisterium will define contraception as always intrinsically evil, but so far it hasn’t. For example, a sexually inactive woman can take birth control to help treat an irregular her cycle. This would make her infertile during that time, but I don’t believe the Church has ever determined it to be immoral.

Also, go to the Latin for: “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.”

“Quapropter erret omnino, qui arbitretur coniugalem actum, sua fecunditate ex industria destitutum, ideoque intrinsece inhonestum, fecundis totius coniugum vitae congressionibus comprobari posse.” (emphasis mine)

Coniugalem = conjugal. Pope Paul VI is referring specifically to the marital act, not all sexual acts. If he wasn’t, then a rape victim would not be permitted to fight off her attacker once the rape had started without committing the sin of Onan. I think the most we can say is that the Magisterium hasn’t yet ruled on contraception (actions to prevent conception, not after conception) in the case of rape. I interpret it as being allowed in the case of rape because it’s not a marital act and it’s not even a sexual act because there is no consent. But I think we’re free to disagree on this matter.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

If a woman is raped but conception has not yet occurred, verifiably, to prevent the rapist’s sperm from reaching the egg, I cannot see the “contraception” as being sinful.

The rapist forced his sperm into a woman and should not be greenlighted to come to conceive. Underscore: if conception has NOT yet occurred.

To encourage a conception of this sort in my mind is sick.

I do not believe Humanae Vitae endorses a “do nothing” to allow a forced conception. What if the woman is already a mother with a family? Should a rapist be an interloper and yet allow his seed into that family?

I have problems with allowing a conception unimpeded.

 

[catholicsem]

If Humanae Vitae is only speaking of contraception in the context of marraige, then does that mean the Church has no definitive teaching on contraception within fornication as well? Is that too open to personal opinion? Perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t bring myself to say that contraception is not an intrinsic evil (not just within marraige).

Also, I think your statement in regards to fighting off a rapist is flawed. The document says any act which “is specifically intended to prevent procreation” is wrong. A woman fighting off a rapist most likely is not trying to prevent a pregnancy as much as she is trying to stop herself from being violated and hurt. I would say her specific intention for fighting of the rapist is not to prevent procreation, but to prevent an attacker from violating her body and dignity.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If Humanae Vitae is only speaking of contraception in the context of marraige, then does that mean the Church has no definitive teaching on contraception within fornication as well? Is that too open to personal opinion? Perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t bring myself to say that contraception is not an intrinsic evil (not just within marraige).

Hi catholicsem,

I don’t want to speak for brianwalden but. . . (and you know with a preface like that I am about to do exactly that, I hope you don’t mind brian )

I think what brianwalden was getting at was that there doesn’t seem to have been an official pronouncement from the magisterium regarding contraception outside of marriage, in the various circumstances. This doesn’t mean, however, that this is open to “personal opinion” in the sense that any opinion has equal merit. It may very well be that artificial contraception outside of marriage with the intent to frustrate conception otherwise possible is a sinful act. I think there are very good arguments to indicate so. But, I don’t think it is an entirely “settled” question.

Often this issue is expressed as the “intrinsic” (considered within itself) and “extrinsic” (considered along with other effects) aspects of artificial contraception. Within marriage artificial contraception is both intrinsically and extrinsically morally evil. Outside of marriage, contraception seems to be intrinsically morally neutral but extrinsically morally evil.

Does that help at all? This is not to say that we should advocate or permit contraception outside of marriage. It seems to be extrinsically morally evil to use artificial contraception married or unmarried, and should be avoided.

** brainwalden**,

I just wanted to address something you posted and perhaps offer a clarification or modification.

brianwalden:

For example, a sexually inactive woman can take birth control to help treat an irregular her cycle. This would make her infertile during that time, but I don’t believe the Church has ever determined it to be immoral.

I think here there actually is no issue of contraception. The use of a pill which regulates hormones is without contraceptive intent. I think the lack of intent is the proper point of evaluation here of the morality of the act. The object of the act, taking hormonal regulation medication seems to be morally neutral. The intent, to regulate hormones for better health seems morally good. Therefore it is a morally good act. Do you see what I am getting at?

God bless,
VC

 

[Brendan]

Also, go to the Latin for: “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.”

“Quapropter erret omnino, qui arbitretur coniugalem actum, sua fecunditate ex industria destitutum, ideoque intrinsece inhonestum, fecundis totius coniugum vitae congressionibus comprobari posse.” (emphasis mine)

Coniugalem = conjugal. Pope Paul VI is referring specifically to the marital act, not all sexual acts. If he wasn’t, then a rape victim would not be permitted to fight off her attacker once the rape had started without committing the sin of Onan. I think the most we can say is that the Magisterium hasn’t yet ruled on contraception (actions to prevent conception, not after conception) in the case of rape. I interpret it as being allowed in the case of rape because it’s not a marital act and it’s not even a sexual act because there is no consent. But I think we’re free to disagree on this matter.

You are correct, the Church does not define rape to be conjugal ( actually, by definition of the word Con- together, J(i)ugale- join). In a rape, the parties do NOT join togther, one party gives no consent.

Conjugal acts are those in which consent is given by both parties. Any use of contraception in conjugal acts ( either married, fornication or adultery) is forbidden ( as evil)

 

[CuriousInIL]

I was just wondering if

1. Fornication or/and
2. Using Contraceptives outside/in a marrige

is a mortal/venial sin?
I would like to know because certain relatives of mine aren’t exaclty good Catholics.
Thanks, everyone for the help and have a great day.

Yes.

 

[brianwalden]

If Humanae Vitae is only speaking of contraception in the context of marraige, then does that mean the Church has no definitive teaching on contraception within fornication as well? Is that too open to personal opinion? Perhaps I am wrong, but I can’t bring myself to say that contraception is not an intrinsic evil (not just within marraige).

Also, I think your statement in regards to fighting off a rapist is flawed. The document says any act which “is specifically intended to prevent procreation” is wrong. A woman fighting off a rapist most likely is not trying to prevent a pregnancy as much as she is trying to stop herself from being violated and hurt. I would say her specific intention for fighting of the rapist is not to prevent procreation, but to prevent an attacker from violating her body and dignity.

I think Verbum Caro said my thoughts better than I ever could. The main thing not to forget is if you’re fornicating you’re committing mortal sin. The question of contraception is secondary to that. Lots of things that are evil most of the time are not intrinsically evil. Even killing someone isn’t intrinsically evil; sometimes we even have an obligation to do it. So I’m willing to believe that contraception might not always be evil in and of itself. This does not at all mean that contraception is open to personal opinion, but that it depends on intent. In some situations a person who doesn’t use contraception while fornicating because they don’t care about the fate of a life they might bring into this world may be sinning more than the person who uses contraception because they do. If the Magisterium has decided otherwise I’ll change my belief.

Concerning your last sentence, “I would say her specific intention for fighting of the rapist is not to prevent procreation, but to prevent an attacker from violating her body and dignity.” I agree with you completely. How is the situation of a woman who takes a contraceptive (drug or device which prevents contraception from occurring, not one which kills a conceived embryo) any different? The attackers sperm in her body is a continuation of that attack. It is a violation of her body and her dignity. Do you believe a rape victim is allowed clean as much sperm as possible from inside her? Do you believe she is allowed to plead with her rapist to use a condom? If you answered yes to any of these, why isn’t she allowed to use a drug to prevent conception?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Procreation is between husband and wife. It is the outline for family.

Forced conception is evil and the fruit of such conception is not holy, at least in my deep sense of things. I see no wrongful act in preventing conception just after a rape.

 

[gtdannemiller]

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 conjugal act of a married couple that uses a contraceptive commits a Mortal Sin. Not the act itself.

It’s a “chicken or the egg” situation.

You are correct, it does not make that sin more mortal. But using contraception is yet another mortal sin (the first one bring fornication).

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You are correct, it does not make that sin more mortal. But using contraception is yet another mortal sin (the first one bring fornication).

This has many twists. All of the above is IMO correct. We can add ONE more Mortal sin to all that: “Conception” during fornication is also a MORTAL SIN.

When we are taught that “sins of the flesh condemn more souls to Hell than any other sin…”

All we have to look at to illustrate that caveat is to read this thread. Sins of the flesh is lose/lose and with God’s powerful graces we all can overcome that proclivity. It takes free will also.

 

[catholicsem]

I think Verbum Caro said my thoughts better than I ever could. The main thing not to forget is if you’re fornicating you’re committing mortal sin. The question of contraception is secondary to that. Lots of things that are evil most of the time are not intrinsically evil. Even killing someone isn’t intrinsically evil; sometimes we even have an obligation to do it. So I’m willing to believe that contraception might not always be evil in and of itself. This does not at all mean that contraception is open to personal opinion, but that it depends on intent. In some situations a person who doesn’t use contraception while fornicating because they don’t care about the fate of a life they might bring into this world may be sinning more than the person who uses contraception because they do. If the Magisterium has decided otherwise I’ll change my belief.

Concerning your last sentence, “I would say her specific intention for fighting of the rapist is not to prevent procreation, but to prevent an attacker from violating her body and dignity.” I agree with you completely. How is the situation of a woman who takes a contraceptive (drug or device which prevents contraception from occurring, not one which kills a conceived embryo) any different? The attackers sperm in her body is a continuation of that attack. It is a violation of her body and her dignity. Do you believe a rape victim is allowed clean as much sperm as possible from inside her? Do you believe she is allowed to plead with her rapist to use a condom? If you answered yes to any of these, why isn’t she allowed to use a drug to prevent conception?

I recently found this quote from a speech given by John Paul II to Indonesian bishops in which he said: “Contraception is to be judged objectively so illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified.”

 

[johnstown_johnn]

The Church addresses contraception foremostly in the conjugal setting.

I don’t believe the Church encourages conception within the act of fornication. The Church affirms that fornication must not take place. It does NOT need to go beyond that.

The conjugal act is part of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Fornication is NOT conjugal nor a sacrament and is, in and of itself, outside of God’s domain. All byproducts/accessories of fornication be it condoms, pills or even birth is unholy.

 

[HenryV]

Both are mortal sins and need to be mentioned in the sacrament of penance.

 

[brianwalden]

I recently found this quote from a speech given by John Paul II to Indonesian bishops in which he said: “Contraception is to be judged objectively so illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified.”

I tried to find this quote in context. The best I found was a website which cited this:

On June 7, 1980, to a group of Indonesian Bishops, His Holiness said:

“In the question of the Church’s teaching on the regulation of birth we are called to profess in union with the whole Church the exigent but uplifting teaching recorded in the Encyclical Humanae vitae, which my Predecessor Paul VI put forth ‘by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ’ (AAS 60, 1968, p.485). Particularly in this regard we must be conscious of the fact that God’s wisdom supercedes human calculation and His grace is powerful in people’s lives.”

“Contraception is to be judged objectively so illicit,” said the Pope, “that it can never, for any reason be justified.”

But when I looked up the speech on the Vatican website, the last line wasn’t there: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1980/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19800607_vescovi-indonesia_en.htm

Even if JPII said it and it didn’t make the final translation, it’s obvious from the context that he was speaking about regulation of birth and was therefore referring to contraception within marriage.

Plain and simple the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on contraception in cases of rape, but think about it: can the Catholic Church ever proclaim that a woman has an obligation be open to life with a man who is raping her? To me such a statement would be completely contrary to JPII’s Theology of the Body.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

“Conception” during fornication is also a MORTAL SIN.

All byproducts/accessories of fornication be it condoms, pills or even birth is unholy.

Forced conception is evil and the fruit of such conception is not holy, at least in my deep sense of things.

To conceive while fornicating is also a Mortal sin.

Johnn,

I have been thinking about your above statements.

It is not entirely clear to me how either the actual conception or the birth of a child, in whatever circumstance, could be a sin.

All sin, mortal or venial, requires an intention. You can’t “accidentally” sin. Furthermore, mortal sin is not attributed to you due to the consequences of an action. The likely consequences can be a factor which increases the gravity of sin, but the consequences do not in themselves make an action sinful.

For instance, let’s say I shoot a firearm through a wall in an apartment. This reckless behavior, and the possibility that it may seriously injure or kill another person would most likely constitute grave matter, and thus would be (all other factors taken into account) mortally sinful. But, if that stray bullet actually DOES kill someone, I have not thereby committed an additional mortal sin.

Similarly I don’t think you can say that if two people outside of marriage have intercourse (grave matter, possible mortal sin) and HAPPEN to conceive a child they thereby incur an additional mortal sin by the happenstance of conceiving. To be sure, part of the grave nature of their illicit intercourse is the possibility of conceiving a child outside of marriage, BUT whether or not that actually happens does not a)determine whether or not their action was gravely sinful in the first place and b)does not, if it occurs, constitute an additional sin.

If you object to this, and you still maintain that the actual conception of a child is grave matter, and/or the child conceived is unholy could you please explain and perhaps provide an authoritative source for your position?

Thank you.
VC

P.S. (Note: I don’t think that stating that there is such a thing as “children born of sin” is a sufficient argument for your position. Could you please provide more?)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

brianwalden,

Good effort trying to track that quote down. Just for the sake of completeness in our ongoing discussion, I note that the actual date of the speech was September 17, 1983, it was addressed to priests, and it was on the subject of responsible procreation.

Unfortunately the only version on the web seems to be in Italian (I suppose it to be the original language). You can find it here on the Vatican website.

The relevant passage follows, with the key sentence bolded

Quando, pertanto, mediante la contraccezione, gli sposi tolgono all’esercizio della loro sessualità coniugale la sua potenziale capacità procreativa, essi si attribuiscono un potere che appartiene solo a Dio: il potere di decidere in ultima istanza la venuta all’esistenza di una persona umana. Si attribuiscono la qualifica di essere non i co-operatori del potere creativo di Dio, ma i depositari ultimi della sorgente della vita umana. In questa prospettiva, la contraccezione è da giudicare, oggettivamente, così profondamente illecita da non potere mai, per nessuna ragione, essere giustificata.

I don’t speak Italian. Does any poster here?

But we can note the words “sposi” which means spouses, and “sessualita coniagale” which must have the equivalent meaning of “conjugal relations.”

Furthermore the introduction the the talk mentions “dei punti essenziali della dottrina cristiana a riguardo del matrimonio” which seems to indicate a speech on the essential points of Christian doctrine in regard to marriage.

VC