Is it hypocritical to not use birth control when having immoral sex?

[jgmes2001]

I have heard many stories of people who engage in immoral sex outside of marriage but who refuse to use birth control because of Catholic teaching. Is this hypocritical? Should people engaging in immoral sex be worried about their use of contraceptions, and will God look more favorabley upon those that don’t?

 

[rpp]

Immoral sex and artificial contraception are separate grave sins.

Sort of like asking, “If I have robbed one store, is it hypocritical to not rob another?”

 

[Other_Eric]

I have heard many stories of people who engage in immoral sex outside of marriage but who refuse to use birth control because of Catholic teaching. Is this hypocritical? Should people engaging in immoral sex be worried about their use of contraceptions, and will God look more favorabley upon those that don’t?

Given that illicit sex with or without birth control leads to the death of the soul, I’d say it’s irrelevant.

 

[true_believer]

In my opinion, it makes no sense to go against church teaching on sex outside of marriage, but then to follow church teaching regarding birth control.

It is completely contradictory and hypocritical to do this. What people in this situation are doing is breaking one of the central rules of the church, but then, as if to make this okay, they follow what is considered to be a less important regulation.

That’s like if a person took police on a high speed chase while blowing past stop signs and almost crashing into other cars, but they rationalize this behavior by following the law about wearing a seat belt.

It’s just crazy to do something so wrong as having sex outside of marriage and rationalizing it by not using birth control.

 

[LittleOne1]

That’s like if a person took police on a high speed chase while blowing past stop signs and almost crashing into other cars, but they rationalize this behavior by following the law about wearing a seat belt.

So you are saying the person decided to run from the cops because they had a seatbelt on… this analogy fails a couple of levels.
First one in the car situation you seem to claim that a person, because they feel safe justifies an illegal action (though misguided if they think they are somehow safer driving at erratic speeds and violating traffic laws). If the seatbelt is likened to the person not using birth control, I do not see how a person could rationalize the thought, “well now that my sexual act is open to life I feel safe before God.” The problem is that the person who recognizes birth control as a violation of God’s law would also know that by following this law, would not make him safe before God when commiting the other grave sin of fornication. They are seperate actions and God would judge both actions seperately.
If a person desired to be truly safe from committing a mortal sin, they would avoid the sin period… I could never see anyone somehow feel safe committing one grave sin knowing that in doing so they are avoiding another, which is unlike your running from the Cop analogy. The running from the cop and using a seat belt is to avoid consequences (by escaping the cop) of whatever was the first grave sin committed. One being open to life does not in any way permit them to escape the judgement of God for fornicating unlike the one who hopes to run from the cop and if successful can avoid punishment.
Moral of the story: Just follow God’s Will and you will be at peace. If you choose to do a grave sin, doing more grave sins will only add to temporal punishment you must make up for before going to heaven even if forgiven of both, and not doing another grave sin (contraception) does give you any safety from committing the first (fornication). Both options are lose lose… its just a matter of how far do you want to dig the hole before seeking God’s mercy… the sooner the better:thumbsup: .

 

[Ron_Conte]

Any choice of the will and intellect, i.e. anything knowingly chosen, can be a sin. Even if two choices or acts occur at the same time, such as choosing to have pre-marital sex and choosing to use contraception, each act has its own morality (or lack thereof).

If you kill someone while robbing a bank, it is two separate sins, even though the two occur at the same time.

If you perform a good deed and an evil deed at the same time, the good act remains good and the evil act remains evil.

So it is one sin to have pre-marital sex, and it is another sin to use contraception. But the best course is to avoid both sins.

 

[CapIV]

maybe people just shouldn’t commit adultery.

 

[Newbie2]

Yeah. It’s hypocritical.

But that’s the least of that person’s problems.

 

[mark_a]

Should people engaging in immoral sex be worried about their use of contraceptions, and will God look more favorabley upon those that don’t?

Its not the Church’s business to tell people how they should go about sinning.

 

[Other_Eric]

Where is the thread asking if it’s more sinful to refuse to give a Christian burial to the person one had murdered?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I have heard many stories of people who engage in immoral sex outside of marriage but who refuse to use birth control because of Catholic teaching…

Contraception usually indicates premeditation about sex. In contrast to pre-meditated acts, couples sometimes place themselves in the “near occassion of sin” and end up engaging in sex outside of marriage because they allowed their passions to get out of control. Rather than going to the pharmacy to obtain contraception for pre-meditated sex, Catholic couples that engage in sex outside marriage should go to Confession and avoid near occassions of sin in the future.

 

[rpp]

Its not the Church’s business to tell people how they should go about sinning.

I am not sure if you meant this to be funny, but it really is.

The
Church’s business is to help people not to sin!

 

[St_Aloysius]

We were talking about this in Religious Education, and our instructor (a really wise woman) said this:

“Look at (insert county name here), and all the stuff going on over there. I have to believe that in situations where people your age are engaging in recreational sex, there is something that needs to be said of priorities. These kids aren’t ready for children of their own. They need to, first and foremost, take the necessary precautions in order to keep a big mistake from turning into a bigger mistake…and THEN they can work on their spirituality. But, guys–don’t ever settle for second best.”

I think this sums it up pretty well.

 

[dwc]

I question the predicate on which this is based. I have never heard of people who disregard the church’s teaching on extramarital sex deliberately refusing to use ABC because they don’t want to sin. It’s beyond hypocritical - it’s nonsensical.

 

[jemfinch]

As I understand it, Humanae Vitae only addresses the use of artificial contraception within the confines of marriage. Even the term it uses for sex (“conjugal act”) are limited to sex within marriage.

I think any contraceptive sex is wrong, since it violates the natural law, and I would say that non-contraceptive sex outside of marriage would be the “lesser evil” when compared to contraceptive sex outside of marriage, but I think the above point is one that ought to be made.

Jeremy

 

[hasikelee]

I have heard many stories of people who engage in immoral sex outside of marriage but who refuse to use birth control because of Catholic teaching. Is this hypocritical? Should people engaging in immoral sex be worried about their use of contraceptions, and will God look more favorabley upon those that don’t?

I know a guy like this. In his case, I feel for him as I think it is a sexual addiction/other issue.

He knows the teachings and his faith, but finds himself in unchaste relationships.

Yet he very adamantly (perhaps justifyingly) says he never dates a girl on birth control or uses other barriers.

It isn’t surprising for this to happen. I mean, there are some prolife protestors who are not compassionate. There are nice people who lie. Some people are against murder but turn a blind eye to domestic violence. Etc etc. These contradictory situations probably are due to deeper issues that we can’t see.

 

[fix]

We were talking about this in Religious Education, and our instructor (a really wise woman) said this:

“Look at (insert county name here), and all the stuff going on over there. I have to believe that in situations where people your age are engaging in recreational sex, there is something that needs to be said of priorities. These kids aren’t ready for children of their own. They need to, first and foremost, take the necessary precautions in order to keep a big mistake from turning into a bigger mistake…and THEN they can work on their spirituality. But, guys–don’t ever settle for second best.”

I think this sums it up pretty well.

I think it sums up secular thinking well.

First, what wisdom is there is teaching someone to sin, but sin “safely”? They are not ready to have children, but they are ready to fornicate? Well, the two acts are not separate.

This is what they call religious education?

 

[deb1]

I question the predicate on which this is based. I have never heard of people who disregard the church’s teaching on extramarital sex deliberately refusing to use ABC because they don’t want to sin. It’s beyond hypocritical - it’s nonsensical.

I knew of a woman who was willing to have sex outside marriage but not use BC. Oddly enough she was okay with her partners using condoms.

So, strangely enough, such people do exists.

 

[deb1]

I think it sums up secular thinking well.

First, what wisdom is there is teaching someone to sin, but sin “safely”? They are not ready to have children, but they are ready to fornicate? Well, the two acts are not separate.

This is what they call religious education?

We live in a world that teaches us that the worst thing a person can do is live without sex. In fact, we are told that NO ONE can control their sexual urges, we can only protect ourselves.

It doesn’t surprise me that some well meaning religious people might have unknowingly adopted this mindset.

 

[Brendan]

In my opinion, it makes no sense to go against church teaching on sex outside of marriage, but then to follow church teaching regarding birth control.

It is completely contradictory and hypocritical to do this. What people in this situation are doing is breaking one of the central rules of the church, but then, as if to make this okay, they follow what is considered to be a less important regulation.

Would you consider it hypocritical if a rapist didn’t kill his victim after he raped her, that he would ignore moral teachings against rape, but follow moral teachings against murder?