Is Using Contraception a Mortal Sin?

[choose_to_love]

@deb: It is describing an action (which then requires an actor) to render procreation impossible. NFP does not change one’s fertility. Our design (well, the female design) is such that fertility changes within the monthly cycle. The fertility is changed by God’s design, not by any action we take. If a woman was in a coma, her fertility would change per her cycle. The couple does not separate the procreative from the unitive, and the act of intercourse remains ordered to procreation objectively, alhthough subjectively the couple may not be fertile.

Who will post first, me or Bookcat?

 

[jinc1019]

Mary_Gail_36:
If what you say is true, once again, NFP would be invalid because it clearly aims to avoid having children.

 

[jinc1019]

The above quote is referring to this quote: "Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. "

 

[Debora123]

…

Thanks Mary Gail. But I am aware what they Church’s teaching is regarding this issue.

I was specifically asking about one particular quote that I thought was contradictory to what the Church teaches in regards to its allowance of NFP.

(…though on a larger scale, that one quote is an example of the inconsistencies and holes I see in the argument, of which I won’t get into.)

 

[Bookcat]

I am confused.

The quote doesn’t say anything about killing the sperm or killing the child. It simply speaks of “an action that would render procreation impossible.”

See below:

“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

See? No specifications about killing anyone or anything.

It is implied. It is addressing the various ways that contraceptives work–covering all the bases as it were.

NFP does not DO ANYTHING to RENDER (that is to make or CAUSE) procreation to be impossible.

One abstains from action entirely…nothing at all is done.

---

The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

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.

 

[Bookcat]

If what you say is true, once again, NFP would be invalid because it clearly aims to avoid having children.

Again it is not the case.

One MAY avoid having children for the right reason.

One can have the very same good intention to avoid children for the right reasons.

But

It is the MEANS here that would then be in question.

Contraception is an evil means and can never be chosen.

NFP can be a very good means.

 

[Debora123]

@deb: It is describing an action (which then requires an actor) to render procreation impossible. NFP does not change one’s fertility. Our design (well, the female design) is such that fertility changes within the monthly cycle. The fertility is changed by God’s design, not by any action we take. If a woman was in a coma, her fertility would change per her cycle. The couple does not separate the procreative from the unitive, and the act of intercourse remains ordered to procreation objectively, alhthough subjectively the couple may not be fertile.

Who will post first, me or Bookcat?

I guess I just don’t see how “researching, studying, planning, and doing all that is possible to AVOID having a child while still being able to have sex” (as jinc put it) is not an action.

It’s not an accidental thing where they just happen to have sex during an infertile time. Many actions are taken.

Especially considering the quote from that pope even included “natural consequences” in there:

“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

I just thought it was kind of an inconsistent quote, that’s all.

 

[fix]

The above quote is referring to this quote: "Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. "

NFP is morally neutral. Even if one has bad intentions using NFP it would not be the sin of contraception. One may be guilty of some other sin like selfishness, but NFP can never be contraception.

One needs a good intention and a good means to achieve the goal of spacing children.

 

[Debora123]

It is implied. It is addressing the various ways that contraceptives work–covering all the bases as it were.

NFP does not DO ANYTHING to RENDER (that is to make or CAUSE) procreation to be impossible.

One abstains from action entirely…nothing at all is done.

Really? It was a very short, to the point, quote. I didn’t see how it was implied in there at all that he was only referring to what you specifically mentioned:

“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

Seems pretty clear to me, no hidden implications.

Also, if “nothing at all is done” when using NFP, then I don’t see why there would be restrictions on it. There are restrictions on it because it is used to purposely avoid pregnancy. “Purposely avoiding pregnancy” is doing something.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thanks Mary Gail. But I am aware what they Church’s teaching is regarding this issue.

I was specifically asking about one particular quote that I thought was contradictory to what the Church teaches in regards to its allowance of NFP.

(…though on a larger scale, that one quote is an example of the inconsistencies and holes I see in the argument, of which I won’t get into.)

If you can find a copy of “Contemporary Moral Theology, Marriage Questions” By John J. Ford and Gerald Kelly, The entire book is good (but it is pre-Humanae Vitae) chapter 11 discusses terms used by the Church and their meanings regarding sexuality.

It’s not in print any longer, but might be available in a library, or perhaps an older priest has a copy.

 

[Havard]

A little twique here…there is no “justifications” for using “contraception” for medical purposes… one is not “contracepting” one is taking a pill that has an unintended side effect …it is a different moral object --a different thing here entirely.

You were correct to simply leave it as stated for: “Contraception” remains “always wrong”…

(we can too note that many would say they need to abstain in such cases due to the potential abortive effect of such…I would add that a person ought to contact the Paul VI institute for there are better ways to address the problems one would take that pill for…but this is all an aside here not to derail the thread)

Thank you, you are 100% right in making that tweak!

This is my point…NFP is NOT open to life.

You misunderstand what the Church means by being open to life, then.

Take another look at Humanae Vitae, it lays out pretty clearly, what it means to be faithful to God’s design.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by jinc1019

That’s because according to the Church, being “open to life” doesn’t really mean being open to life. It simply means not using contraception and not using NFP to avoid for reasons that aren’t just.

Jinc, I wish you the best of luck in your journey to understanding this teaching.

 

[choose_to_love]

@deb: researching/studying /planning: OK, taking a temp is an action, but it is not an action that renders the marital act sterile. In the quote you selected, the action is taken to render procreation impossible. Taking a temp does not render procreation impossible. Identifying types of cervical mucus does not make the act sterile. Measuring LH levels does not render procreation impossible.

In the use of NFP, the act is not made sterile by the couple; if the couple is infertile at the moment that the act undertaken, that is a result of God’s design and the consequent operation of the female reproductive system that He made. Choosing not to engage in the act does not make it sterile, it makes it not chosen. There is no act to sterilize.

As pointed out above, the Church specifically teaches that responsible parenthood involves determing whether the couple is called to have another child at a particular point in time. If the couple has good/just/serious reasons to postpone, prayerfully arrived at, the Church specifically teaches that is responsible parenthood. The couple can have poor or even unjust reasons to postpone, by which the use of NFP would be illicit, but that is not contraception.

 

[Bookcat]

Really? It was a very short, to the point, quote. I didn’t see how it was implied in there at all that he was only referring to what you specifically mentioned:

“Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

Seems pretty clear to me, no hidden implications.

Also, if “nothing at all is done” when using NFP, then I don’t see why there would be restrictions on it. There are restrictions on it because it is used to purposely avoid pregnancy. “Purposely avoiding pregnancy” is doing something.

Yes really.

With NFP one is doing NOTHING to the martial act to cause it (render it -make it) to be infertile. One is gee …not doing the martial act at that moment.

And when one does actually engage in the martial act --one is again is doing NOTHING to render it infertile…it is well “fertile”.

 

[vsedriver]

My wife would never support using Natural Family Planning, and that I wouldn’t either, mainly because it would be irresponsible at this point in our lives together to have a child, and NFP presents a greater risk than other birth control methods.

Using contraception isn’t going to solve your problem. If the risk of pregnancy is so great then your only choice is abstinence.

Also, my wife is in medical school and I am in law school, so our lives are extremely busy and having sex on a schedule would be virtually impossible. It also is not fair to say to my wife, “Sorry, you are going to have to risk having a child right now and potentially put medical school on hold.” And if I did do that, and she did get pregnant, we don’t have the money to pay for childcare or to properly cloth/feed a child. So not only would my wife have to give up on medical school while she is pregnant, she would likely have to wait several years before starting up again.

Ok, this is hindsight and might shock many people, but you were not ready to get married. You should have waited till you had completed school and were prepared to take on the responsibilities of a sacramental married couple which means being open to life.

I know the Catholic response demands we either not have sex or use natural family planning, but the logic behind these two methods seem nearly identical to that of birth control and Humanae Vitae does not, in my opinion, show a valid difference between the two.

The difference between NFP and ABC is that the former is still open to life because it puts God in charge by only using what God put in place. ABC is telling God you are in charge and He must overcome your will if He wants you to have a child.

Additionally, for how long should my wife and I not have sex? For seven years of medical school and residency?

Yes, if having a child would interfere with these plans then best to avoid sex all together.

It seems to me that my wife’s potential for saving lives a doctor who wants to serve impoverished communities should outweigh having a child at this point in our relationship. Our ability to help the world would be GREATLY diminished by having a child now, and asking a married couple to abstain from sex for seven years doesn’t seem right either.

Sadly, you have no idea if you will be able to help the world in any capacity. You can only assume. Perhaps having a child would in fact be a greater contribution to the world than your current goals. Ask Steve Jobs’ mom if her unexpected pregnancy was world changing.

I guess I just don’t understand the entire teaching, even if it is a mortal sin, and it remains a huge roadblock for me and my faith. I know this second post is not quite on topic with the original, but it is all interconnected.

It is all about what makes sex a holy act and what makes it a sinful act. To enjoy the pleasures of sex without being open to the dual purpose (unitive and procreative) of sex is sinful.

I know the Catholic Church has the authority to make any determinations it sees fit on issues of faith and morals, but does it really have the authority to say absolutely, without a single doubt, that issues like contraception and natural family planning, which are not essential Christian doctrines, are infallible? I think the Church has overstepped its bounds in making that distinction. It’s one of the few areas I feel that way about, maybe the only one.

Sinful behavior is essential Christian doctrine. The Church has the authority to determine what is sinful behavior. Misuse of the gift of sexuality is sinful behavior. Sexual activity, not open to life is sinful behavior.

NFP is not contraception. NFP uses God’s design to space out pregnancies. It is open to life in that God can work with the married couple.

ABC is contraception. It breaks something that is not broken. It challenges God’s will.

I suggest you both try NFP, if she is a med student it should be great training for her future work. Also, there are only a few days out of the month where you would abstain. It is safer for your wife’s health as it won’t introduce nasty chemicals either. Trust God to know your situation and to take care of you and your wife.

The hardest lesson for all people, married or single, to learn is to trust God and to do his will with our lives. We so much want total control over our lives.

 

[Debora123]

Using contraception isn’t going to solve your problem. If the risk of pregnancy is so great then your only choice is abstinence.

…I figured it was only a matter of time before someone came out and told the OP to stop having sex with his wife.

Lol it seems to be the favorite around here for some reason.

 

[Debora123]

Ok, this is hindsight and might shock many people, but you were not ready to get married. You should have waited till you had completed school and were prepared to take on the responsibilities of a sacramental married couple which means being open to life.

It is very incorrect of you to say this, and quite frankly, not your place. :nope:

 

[Castello]

If you can find a copy of “Contemporary Moral Theology, Marriage Questions” By John J. Ford and Gerald Kelly, The entire book is good (but it is pre-Humanae Vitae) chapter 11 discusses terms used by the Church and their meanings regarding sexuality.

It’s not in print any longer, but might be available in a library, or perhaps an older priest has a copy.

Another great book is Jone’s “Moral Theology”

 

[Bookcat]

Another great book is Jone’s “Moral Theology”

useful but rather more dated …

 

[Ratergam]

will seek for discussion very interesting!@