Is Using Contraception a Mortal Sin?

[iceandsnow]

Pope St Gregory the Great taught that:

“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they
are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation,
and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse,
they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure.”

In other words, sex is ONLY for procreation,
If it is pleasurable, it is a sin.

NFP clearly conflicts with the bible and Church founders;

In the Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary
to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation
is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin.

AND

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness,(period)
and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain,
and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood:
and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. [Lev 20:18]

AND
“You will not come near your wife when she is in her separation” [Lev. 18:19].
Nor, indeed, let them have relations when their wives are with child.
For [in that case] they are not doing it for the begetting
of children, but only for the sake of pleasure.
Now a lover of God should not be a lover of pleasure.”

(Apostolic Constitutions, compiled c. 390)

Again, sex is ONLY for procreation,
If it is pleasurable, it is a sin and you are not a lover of God .

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Pope St Gregory the Great taught that:

“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they
are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation,
and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse,
they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure.”

In other words, sex is ONLY for procreation,
If it is pleasurable, it is a sin.

NFP clearly conflicts with the bible and Church founders;

In the Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary
to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation
is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin.

AND

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness,(period)
and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain,
and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood:
and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. [Lev 20:18]

AND
“You will not come near your wife when she is in her separation” [Lev. 18:19].
Nor, indeed, let them have relations when their wives are with child.
For [in that case] they are not doing it for the begetting
of children, but only for the sake of pleasure.
Now a lover of God should not be a lover of pleasure.”

(Apostolic Constitutions, compiled c. 390)

Again, sex is ONLY for procreation,
If it is pleasurable, it is a sin and you are not a lover of God .

It is **not **a sin for a married couple to enjoy pleasure in sexuality, as long as there is no other sin involved. It is a sin when it becomes the entire focus, or when that desire or pleasure becomes disordered.

Your quotes back this up, in fact - i.e. “… not for the begetting of children, but only for the sake of pleasure.”

 

[ahs]

In other words, sex is ONLY for procreation,
If it is pleasurable, it is a sin…

Not correct. Even Augustine and Gregory I saw a unitive purpose for sex. You must consider their audience and what heresey they were fighting against when reading their works and read it in the proper context. Aquinas actually calls it “heretical” to hold to what you have just stated. I’ll provide you his quote this evening when I get home if someone else doesn’t do it before me.

 

[iceandsnow]

You overlooked the larger picture, but lets look at St Augustine to clarify.

“the genital organs have become as it were the private property of lust… It is this that arouses shame.” Indeed, now our genitals are nothing more than “parts of shame.”

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve experienced sex, not in the heat of passionate enjoyment, but in a state of controlled interaction as their wills, completely free from sexual desire, intentionally and rationally moved their body parts. Augustine describes how sex would have been experienced before the Fall:

The sexual organs would have been brought into activity by the same bidding of the will as controlled the other organs. Then, without feeling the allurement of passion goading him on, the husband would have relaxed on his wife’s bosom in tranquility of mind and with no impairment of his body’s integrity… so the two sexes might have been united for impregnation and conception by an act of will, instead of by a lustful craving."

It is pretty clear, sex is only free of sin, if it is free of pleasure.

 

[Portrait]

Debora’s reasons are totally legit.

“With regard to physical,** economic**, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
~Humanae Vitae
(emphasis mine)

She doesn’t have health insurance. How is that materialistic? And what is so bad about being pragmatic?
Your tone is very charitable which is nice but I’m going to have to strongly disagree with your criticism of her reasons. Same to those earlier in the thread for saying similar things to the OP. Not only is it not your place to be telling them that, but you are just plain wrong.
IMO it would be irresponsible, not AT ALL selfish, to have children in times of financial difficulty. I look down upon (though don’t verbalize my opinion) those who have children they cannot afford. It’s all relative of course, whereas health reasons may be more black and white, but still. :nope: Nothing wrong with waiting till one * pragmatically* decides the time is right. Screw providence. Relying on providence is how people end up on welfare and government assistance.

Dear samian1611,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Humanae Vitae is addressing those who may be considering having “more children” or “additional chidren”, surely implying that they have at least one child in the household already. It says nothing, my dear friend, of delaying starting a family until financial security has been achieved. If that were the case, then many poverty-stricken spouses would be denied having the blessing of at least one child, a child, I hasten to add, that is the most natural result of the marriage union.

Pragmatism is not infrequently a cloak for selfishness and materialism, especially in these days of ‘career women’ when so many, alas, refuse to gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood. It is by humble acceptance of her proper sphere that a woman fulfills her true destiny. Now, my dear friend, I am not suggesting for one moment that this is the case with our dear sister, but it is certainly a trend nowadays and such worldly thinking has inflitrated the Church, to be sure.

Our dear sister expressed, quite understandably, concern regarding being able to support even one child at the present time, whilst she was in higher education. What I said was that, as faithful Catholics, we can rely upon the Divine Providence to ensure that an extra mouth is fed and provided for. Now I freely admit that they will have to make many sacrifices and perhaps endure much hardship for a season, but this will be compensated by the precious gift of a child and all the special joy that that brings. Unfortunately, our present day society does not like talk of hardship or sacrifices, and very often what they regard as necessities are really luxuries that are not essential to daily living. True, many ordinary people are struggling to meet basic utility bills and have little or no money left over for luxuries, myself included, so I do appreciate the difficulties involved, but that is not really a good reason for delaying starting a family and has never been considered such by the Church.

Needless to say, a couple could postpone having their first child for a season, if they really are of the opinion that the financial hardship would be intolerable. However, they must, during this period, either practice NFP or abstain totally from carnal copulation, the latter is, as I said previously, extraordinarily difficult for the youth, where the libido is intense. Nevertheless, such abstinence is neither strange nor impossible with God, especially where the marriage is strong in other areas and the spouses are pursuing holiness.

Catholics are firm believers in the Divine Providence and, according to their faith, they know that God will provide for their needs (not wants) and the needs of any children that may be born into their household as a consequence of their union. God has promised to supply all our needs, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. God, my dear friend, is no man’s debtor, and He will not fail to the supply the essential needs of those who gladly serve and obey Him and make sacrifices to forward his cause in this godless world.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[iceandsnow]

Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii
acknowledged for the FIRST TIME a secondary,
unitive, purpose of intercourse.

Again 1930, very modern.

 

[Castello]

You overlooked the larger picture, but lets look at St Augustine to clarify.

“the genital organs have become as it were the private property of lust… It is this that arouses shame.” Indeed, now our genitals are nothing more than “parts of shame.”

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve experienced sex, not in the heat of passionate enjoyment, but in a state of controlled interaction as their wills, completely free from sexual desire, intentionally and rationally moved their body parts. Augustine describes how sex would have been experienced before the Fall:

The sexual organs would have been brought into activity by the same bidding of the will as controlled the other organs. Then, without feeling the allurement of passion goading him on, the husband would have relaxed on his wife’s bosom in tranquility of mind and with no impairment of his body’s integrity… so the two sexes might have been united for impregnation and conception by an act of will, instead of by a lustful craving."

It is pretty clear, sex is only free of sin, if it is free of pleasure.

St Augustine was writing his opinions, he was never pope and could never speak with infallibility.

 

[Bookcat]

St Augustine was writing his opinions, he was never pope and could never speak with infallibility.

and often what he did write has been misunderstood by some…

There way a book by the way some ten years ago or so called “St. Augustine on Nature Sex and Marriage” --it likely unraveled various myths-misconceptions (pun intended)

 

[John21652]

Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii
acknowledged for the FIRST TIME a secondary,
unitive, purpose of intercourse.

Again 1930, very modern.

Oh, we didn’t really need telling about the pleasures of sex. We already knew. That’s why Catholics were famous for big families.

 

[ValPal]

Christ chastised sinners, too. There is nothing good or charitable about denying the truth that actions have consequences, and that evil puts one on the road to Hell.

There is nothing wrong with informing people of the Truth. There is much wrong with demeaning or implying things about them, and ramming the Truth down their throat.

I for one am flummoxed that anyone has the temerity to refuse to obey the Church on this, or on anything.

There is a gigantic difference between having questions and doubting something while assenting, and rejecting. The finger-pointing prideful crowd often confuse the two.

What monstrous hubris must drive one to think they know better than a theological tradition that stretches back over three millennia, populated with the holiest men who’ve ever lived – saints and martyrs who dedicated their lives to prayer, penance, and contemplation – some of whom were rewarded for their labors with a miraculous vision of God Himself? You literally have to think you’re smarter than Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas! As I said, monumental and astounding pride, the sort that condemns souls. We in this degenerate and apostatical sinkhole of a civilization should not presume to question the insights of holier and wiser men than us.

I’ll take the abuse from Plate, Aristotle, the Pope, or similar person. From some know-it-all? Never. You can thank such people for me being a revert. It’s just a shame Catholicism has them also, but people will be people.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Apologies …

Ok. Now back to the thread…

Is using contraception a mortal sin? Yes.

Agreed

But I thought the penalty for mortal sin was Hell?

Cafeteria Catholics…wake up before its too late

 

[Bookcat]

But I thought the penalty for mortal sin was Hell?

Yes if one dies without it being repented of and forgiven.

There is also the distinction of “objectively” something being a mortal sin.
And someone subjectively not being culpable for such due to say invincible ignorance etc.

Though someone can be on the other hand more culpable too.

 

[ahs]

Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii
acknowledged for the FIRST TIME a secondary,
unitive, purpose of intercourse.

Again 1930, very modern.

Hi iceand snow. I ended up finding what I promised so here goes:

St. Augustine recognized a unitive aspect to intercourse:

For of these certain [goods] are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good. (Of the Good of Marriage, Section 9).

As did Gregory I:

…when the married have intercourse with each other even incontinently, they still avoid lapse into sin, and are still saved through mercy. For they find as it were a little city, wherein to be protected from the fire; since this married life is not indeed marvellous for virtue, but yet is secure from punishment…But the married, in this course of conduct, then preserve their lives as it were in a small city, when they intercede for each other by continual supplications. Whence it is also rightly said by the Angel to the same Lot, See I have accepted your prayers concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city for the which you have spoken Genesis 19:21. For in truth, when supplication is poured out to God, such married life is by no means condemned. Concerning which supplication Paul also admonishes, saying, Defraud not one the other except it be with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer 1 Corinthians 7:5. (Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii)

St Thomas Aquinas:

There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice. When it is a cause of exciting lust, although within the limits of marriage, it is a venial sin; and when it goes beyond these limits, so as to intend intercourse with another if possible, it would be a mortal sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

I answer that, Since no act proceeding from a deliberate will is indifferent, as stated in the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 40, 1, 3; I-II, 18, 9), the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious… (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

Don’t fall into the trap of “it was never mentioned before, so it’s new…” mentality. Many things were never formally defined or expressed because they were simply generally accepted as common knowledge. I have no idea when the term “unitive aspect” was first used. But it doesn’t really matter in this case. It is similar to the term “transubstantiation” beign used for the first time some 1100 or 1200 years after Christianity. It’s first use did not suggest it was a new concept or teaching…there was simply a need to define an existing belief with a word that could adequately define what the long-held belief was.

And back to the OP: Contraception is grave matter for mortal sin.

 

[John21652]

Yes if one dies without it being repented of and forgiven.

There is also the distinction of “objectively” something being a mortal sin.
And someone subjectively not being culpable for such due to say invincible ignorance etc.

Though someone can be on the other hand more culpable too.

Canon Law also speaks of (*Can. *751) “obstinate denial” and “obstinate doubt” as causing offence against Church teachings. In other words, someone who thinks they know better can not put aside Church teaching just because they don’t quite understand the ‘why’ of a moral edict. To do so is a display of Hubris.

 

[John21652]

Monks and Mermaids is a Benedictine Blog. It has an article worth reading, titled “Young people today have lost moral vocabulary”, says Archbishop Chaput.

Archbishop Chaput, of Denver, spoke about the loss of societies moral vocabulary. He said this -

“If we’re embarrassed about Church teachings, or if we disagree with them, or if we’ve decided that they’re just too hard to live by, or too hard to explain, then we’ve already defeated ourselves.”

“The central issue is whether we ourselves really do believe. Catechesis is not a profession. It’s a dimension of discipleship. If we’re Christians, we’re each of us called to be teachers and missionaries.”

“We need to really believe what we claim to believe,” he stressed. “We need to stop calling ourselves ‘Catholic’ if we don’t stand with the Church in her teachings – all of them.”

That’s a strong message.

And the article even has Catholic inside inverted commas.

 

[samiam1611]

Dear samian1611,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Humanae Vitae is addressing those who may be considering having “more children” or “additional chidren”, surely implying that they have at least one child in the household already. It says nothing, my dear friend, of delaying starting a family until financial security has been achieved. If that were the case, then many poverty-stricken spouses would be denied having the blessing of at least one child, a child, I hasten to add, that is the most natural result of the marriage union.

Well I’ll be. I’ve read HV, and that section of it particularly at least a dozen times and never picked up on that detail. Touché, friend!

Reflecting on this, I am a bit puzzled actually.

I have never come across anything in Catholic literature or discussion distinguishing the the “rules” if one has no children vs 1+ children. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that financial issues are an acceptable reason to delay/prevent pregnancy if one has already had one or more children, but is not an acceptable reason if one has no children? In light of your pointing out the “more children” part of that paragraph, it would seem you would be right…but that is news to me. Would this be true for non-financial reasons, such as health reasons? Could you or anyone elaborate on that and correct me if I am wrong?

Thank you for explaining and extra thank you for your charitable manner of speaking.

 

[Abu]

Iceandsnow #279
Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii acknowledged for the FIRST TIME a secondary, unitive, purpose of intercourse.
Again 1930, very modern.

Learn from ahs (a great post #286) and from John21652 (great posts #287/8).

To the confused and the pompous – where ignorance is bliss is folly to be wise.

Blacksword continues to wallow in his self-imposed deception that the doctrine against contraception is not infallible. Some people make their own trouble by never learning.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 24, 2007: **
“There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.”

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson to me on Nov-22-2002: **
**“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility **not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, **which would include **canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[Debora123]

Wow! What a thread!

“Demeaning the Magesterium?”

“Excommunication?”

I’m flummoxed. Is thought this was a Catholic forum, not a forum for people that act like the Salem witch accusers in the 1690s. Please stop that kind of nonsense and try to act in a charitable, Christ-like manner. It is embarrassing.

I know right?

It started getting really nasty, at which time I tried standing up to it and calling people out for being rude and saying things when it wasn’t their place… but it’s only kept going downhill anyway.

Threads like this are better left for their own self destruction and harm.

Goodbye!

 

[Abu]

ValPal #266
“Demeaning the Magesterium?”
“Excommunication?”
I’m flummoxed. Is thought this was a Catholic forum, not a forum for people that act like the Salem witch accusers in the 1690s. Please stop that kind of nonsense and try to act in a charitable, Christ-like manner. It is embarrassing.

No one should be embarrassed by Christ except dissenters – the Christ-like manner:
To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

In case you missed it:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 24, 2007: **There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.
[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network]

Simply, Fr Torraco knew what he was talking about. It would be salutary if all got their facts, faith and morals right before posting, unless enquiring.

 

[Castello]

Well I’ll be. I’ve read HV, and that section of it particularly at least a dozen times and never picked up on that detail. Touché, friend!

Reflecting on this, I am a bit puzzled actually.

I have never come across anything in Catholic literature or discussion distinguishing the the “rules” if one has no children vs 1+ children. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that financial issues are an acceptable reason to delay/prevent pregnancy if one has already had one or more children, but is not an acceptable reason if one has no children? In light of your pointing out the “more children” part of that paragraph, it would seem you would be right…but that is news to me. Would this be true for non-financial reasons, such as health reasons? Could you or anyone elaborate on that and correct me if I am wrong?

Thank you for explaining and extra thank you for your charitable manner of speaking.

Posting this one again, it gives a good breakdown of the Holy Father’s guidelines

cantuar.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/you-can-only-use-nfp-for-grave.html