Is Using Contraception a Mortal Sin?

[Blacksword]

The marital act is not changed in any way. How has fertility been suppressed?

There are taken to help space children, that is not the issue. Again, the marital act is not altered in anyway.

Sorry but both of these are deflections of the sort I’ve been talking about. I didn’t say “suppress” fertility I said “taking actions”…in anticipation of the act to render it infertile. And when you say “space children” you mean “avoid pregnancy at this time/with this act” the same as with contraception. It’s for “spacing children” too! Sorry, I’ll bow out now as I said before, thanks for the discussion though.

 

[Bookcat]

Looking at some chart or taking a temp --is about knowledge.

NOTHING is done…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is done to** cause** (render) the martial act to be infertile.

That is why I mentioned weather. (obviously the church has no teaching on weather morality, that was not the point)

One observes the weather. One can observe the weather very accurately by using different instruments. Weather occurs whether we observe it or not. We don’t render a day sunny

Fertility is cyclical for a woman. Observing the cycle does not render it infertile.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It is similar to fasting. We don’t always fast. We fast certain days and then other days we can eat. Because I fast on a Friaday for example, doesn’t mean that Saturday is “binge eating day”.

The teaching of periodic continence is very simple. The sexual act must be performed in a way that it is ordered per se towards procreation. In very simple terms, a complete “marital act” is when the male seminates vaginally.

Whether the woman is fertile or not makes no difference to the licitness of the act, because 1. Women are mostly infertile 2. The infertility is not caused by something (a pill, a device, sterilization)

Are there times when a couple wish to not conceive? Yes.

How could they do that while keeping each and every completed marital act is ordered per se towards procreation (meaning, non contracepted, no barrier, no non vaginal emissions) They abstain from relations while the woman is fertile.

Determining when she is fertilit is a morally neutral act. A celibate nun, for example can practice fertility awareness for health reasons, even though she is celibate.

The only way NFP works is by avoiding relations. Having relations while she is infertile is as secular terms refer to it “unprotected” sex.

I’m in my early 40’s. I’ve known about NFP being licit for about 30 something years. When I was in disagreement about NFP, it wasn’t ever regarding th fact that the couple could still have sex…it was about “How dare the Church tell a couple they cannot have sex when they want?”

So it’s a little difficult for me to understand the rationale;

“The Church allows infertile sex, so then it must allow contraception as well. If contraception is not allowed then no relations while she is infertile, and no figuring out when she is fertile either.”

And, I’m not addressing anyone specifically, but I’ve seen a variant on this thought many times on CAF.

 

[sw85]

Is using contraception a mortal sin in a valid Catholic marriage? I understand the Catholic teaching on the subject, I have read Humane Vitae and I have posed questions on this forum about it as well and I can’t bring myself to believe it. If it is a mortal sin, then doesn’t that mean I cannot receive communion?

Yes, it is a mortal sin when utilized with full knowledge (which you acknowledge you have) and full consent. As with any mortal sin, so long as it is unconfessed, it separates you from the precious body and blood of Christ.

There are circumstances under which contraception may licitly be used – for instance, to treat a legitimate medical condition – but even then the contraceptive effect may in no way be willed, and the condition must be of sufficiently grave matter to justify the double effect (e.g., mere comfort is not a sufficient basis).

 

[fix]

Which boils down to argument from authority again.

Well, Christ is the authority in these matters.

Which, as I’ve said and am to post again shortly, is the best, non-inconsistent or disingenous argument that can be made ont the issue. “The Pope says God ordained it to be this way and ONLY this way”. But thanks for explaining what you meant.

It is a physical truth and a moral truth.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[fix]

Sorry but both of these are deflections of the sort I’ve been talking about. I didn’t say “suppress” fertility I said “taking actions”…in anticipation of the act to render it infertile. And when you say “space children” you mean “avoid pregnancy at this time/with this act” the same as with contraception. It’s for “spacing children” too! Sorry, I’ll bow out now as I said before, thanks for the discussion though.

Sorry but you cannot use your own terms and impose them on what the Church is communicating. NFP does not render the act infertile. I fail to see how engaging in an act that is not altered is equal to engaging in an act that is altered.

 

[samiam1611]

Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust all is well.

To delay having a family on the grounds of slender means, whilst sounding superficially plausible to worldly reasoning, is really nothing more than worldly pragmatism, dear sister. This may be a very fashionable trend in our present irrelgious culture, but it is diametrically opposed to the whole spirit of Catholicism. Now if there were no God; if there were no hope of any future life and if one were not a professing Christian, one might very well be tempted to be swayed by such secular reasoning, as on the face of it, at least, it appears perfectly sensible and practical argumentation. It admits of no doubt that financial deficiency does necessarily entail poverty, I myself no much of that as did our dear Lord Himself. Notwithstanding, my dear sister, is not the opportunity of attaining eternal salvation and felicity, worth any privations in this transient life?

It may be said, by way of reply, that if one is confronted with the choice of bringing undernourished and disadvantaged children into the world for whom one cannot presently provide, or resorting in the short term to contraception, then surely contraception is the lesser of the two evils. On the contrary, to bring children into the world and not be able to provide for them is easily the lesser of the two evils. This may run counter to the worldly and materialistic mindset of the spirit of the age in which our lot is sadly cast, but is, nonetheless, thinking with an authentic Catholic mind. Better any temporal trials than commit mortal sin by breaking God’s law. In any event, you have no certainty that you and your husband will be unable to provide for any children that God’s blesses you with, prior to you finishing your college education. There is such a thing as the Divine Providence, especially to those who are faithful to Him and His laws, even if plain common sense dicatates otherwise. Forgive me if I come across as rather censorious or uncharitable, dear sister, but I am keenly aware of how very easy it is nowadays for even good young Catholic people to assimilate the godless worldly thinking of our times.

Incidently, God has a special providence for large families. At best, I respectfully suggest that you are making a conjecture, based on your anxiety about not having sufficient funds at the moment to support even one children, which may never be realized. Moreover, if I have understood correctly, you at least toy with the idea of violating a certain obligation on pragmatic grounds, based upon possible contingencies - contingencies, which, even if they did eventuate, could never excuse such a violation of the law of God and the Church.

The other alternative in your situation is, of course, self-denial and abstaining from conjugal relations until you have completed college. Mutual self-restraint, whilst involving discomfort, is lawful for Catholics, as you know. However, if people do choose to use their marital privileges, they must accept that God absolutely forbids any form of birth prevention. Please understand, dear sister, I do fully appreciate that the libido in youth is extremely intense and that abstinence requires very special grace, but nothing is impossible with God and if the marriage is strong in other areas, then it can be done, as many can no doubt testify.

Finally, we must have faith to believe that the good Lord will not send a mouth He cannot fill. Even if it meant poverty; even if foster parent’s had to take care of me, I would prefer to be born and have my chance of eternal happiness with God. In any event, I would seriously question that parents cannot normally support the children which will result from their marriage, provided God’s laws are duly observed. Just remember, a great many of men’s trials are those which never happen! True, having even one child can mean difficulty, self-sacrifice and earnest service of God. However, as a general rule, such difficulties are confined to the early stages of married life, when the vigour of youth is most able to bear them.

God bless and I proffer my sincere apologies in advance, dear sister, if I have in any way offended you or misunderstood your present situation etc.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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.

 

[Castello]

. Screw providence. Relying on providence is how people end up on welfare and government assistance.

This is the sort of doubt that amazes me. Our Lord’s Providence, we are commanded to trust in Him.

 

[samiam1611]

I’m going to offer my explanation to blacksword, the OP, and whoever else stuggles with this.

Let me preface by saying, I am an atheist but after much research, discussion, and thought, I understand it now so don’t give up hope that you will too some day!

Interestingly enough, the thing that got through to me, the thing that made the light bulb go off in my head :newidea:, the thing that made it all crystal clear to me was…reading the Jewish teachings on contraception! It was actually a :doh2: kind of realisation.

Weird, huh? Let me explain.

I find the Catholic teaching full of mumbo jumbo and confusing phrases. Open to life doesn’t mean what I think it means. Unitive and procreative are odd words that are often misunderstood. Ordered to procreation is a strange way of wording it. Those phrases threw me off. So forget that for now, and let me tell you what the Jewish teaching is, it may help you understand the Catholic teaching (though they are not the same).

“The option of contraception is raised by the Talmud (tractate Yevamot 12b), where the use of a pessary is discussed for women who are too young to get pregnant, presently pregnant, or nursing. In each case, either the woman or her child is at risk for serious complications, and this is the basis for many rabbinic authorities permitting contraception in situations where pregnancy would seriously harm the woman. In those cases, the most “natural” method is preferred; as the use of a condom or pessary creates a physical barrier, “the pill” (or an intrauterine device) is preferred by most authorities.”

When I read that…I was like…oh…duh! It’s not really about the intent of the couple or their ability to procreate. It’s about how they have sex.
Now wait a minute you say! How is sex on the pill or with an IUD natural? Well it’s not exactly but it is in the sense that the act is not changed. If you did not know a person was on the pill or an IUD, you would not be able to tell they were contracepting by watching them have sex because the sex itself is unchanged.

I would say as an atheist, Nature/evolution “designed” sex to be a certain way. (Just replace nature with God). Am I right, or am I right, that sex feels best when performed to completion inside the woman without a condom? (I am a woman and I think so!) There’s just something…not ideal…about barrier contraception. It’s like nature (God) did not mean for sex to be done this way. (propagation of the species anyone? ) And how intriguing, that the most fertile time of the month is when I have the most desire and have noticeable changes in my body. Hmmmm…it’s as if…SEX WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE BABIES and nature (God) ensured this by making sex feel best when done normally!

Now, you have to dig a little deeper into Catholic theology to go from Jewish rules to Catholic rules. But the root of the issue, the basis that both teachings are founded on, is that God designed sex to be done a certain way. It was designed to be between a man and a woman, yes? Yes I am sure you would agree. Sex was designed to be between a man and a woman and to be done in a way that will propagate the species…I mean bring new blessings into the world as the natural fruit of love and nature, or God, saw fit to add little details like increased desire during ovulation and increased pleasure when performed without a barrier, to make it clear that this is “the way sex is supposed to be.”

So now you know God’s plan: have sex in a way that does not impede conception.

Now you ask, how does NFP not thwart God’s plan? NFP does not thwart God’s plan because you are not actually changing the sexual act itself. What you do in the morning with that thermomemeter and what you do with that ovulation test kit, what you do with that calendar and chart, is up to you. Don’t have sex. Have sex. Up to you. You don’t change the sex act itself by monitoring fertility. God intended sex to be a certain way. And in all His wisdom, God designed sex to be most bonding and best feeling when done this way so that people could detect His plan that this is the way it is supposed to be.

So my suggestion is: read up on [Orthodox] Jewish teaching. Reading up on evolutionary aspects of sex couldn’t hurt either. And just think about it. Pray if you want. Think about what you feel when you have sex, and what feels best. You will see that the perks of non-contracepted sex indicate that sex - each and every sexual act - is supposed to be done in a way that does not deliberately alter the act. Do it the way nature intended. Because that’s the way God intended.

Yeah I got my dissenting opinion all right. I am strongly in favor of using contraception. (Must be that irreligious antinatalist atheist in me ) but I do understand why the Church teaches what She does and you can too.

Hope this helps.

 

[Corki]

The very poor African had a very good observation.

It can spur our (I assume we are mostly here in the West) reflection.

This thread is moving a bit faster than I can keep up.

The poor African’s comments should spur reflection and perspective.

The Church teaches responsible parenthood but it’s not a formula, rather it’s a continuum. At one end are those that absolutely can’t have another child (serious risk to life, desparate poverty, mental instability). At the other end are those that blithely don’t **want **to have another child. But in between is a whole host of individual situations that may or may not be just reasons to avoid having another child.

Where one places oneself on that continuum is as much a factor of perspective as it is of circumstances. For the African commenter’s perspective, he would put his pointer of what is a just reason much closer to the life and death end than would many well-intentioned Catholics in the Western world. This isn’t because of how much it costs to raise a child or what other resources are available. Those are factors but what’s really behind the difference is the differnce in priorities. Where does faith, family and children fall in the overall list of priorities, maybe hundreds of them, that most couples have to sort through? In the West, it seems, they are farther down the list that in the culture the African commentor has experienced.

This should give us pause and be a source of prayerful reflection. We are called to be counter-cultural in the living out of our faith, after all.

 

[dailey]

Let me preface by saying, I am an atheist but after much research, discussion, and thought, I understand it now so don’t give up hope that you will too some day!

Have to admit, I didn’t read a thing you posted after this comment. But let me just say, and I am sure I speak for many others as well…don’t hold your breath.

 

[Bookcat]

Have to admit, I didn’t read a thing you posted after this comment. But let me just say, and I am sure I speak for many others as well…don’t hold your breath.

yes and hitting the hard floor after one passes out can leave one with a headache too…

 

[ValPal]

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.

 

[samiam1611]

Have to admit, I didn’t read a thing you posted after this comment. But let me just say, and I am sure I speak for many others as well…don’t hold your breath.

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean an atheist can’t understand the Catholic teaching because they don’t believe in God?

Well if you bothered to read my post you would see that what some see as part of God’s plan I see as part of Nature’s plan. I understand the Catholic teaching to be, in short, God intended sex to be unitive and procreative. The atheist version of this statement is nature designed sex to be bonding and to propagate the species.

Please read my post and I welcome your respectful response. Have you no interest in hearing something other than the same old lines from HV and the Catechism for the billionth time?

 

[dailey]

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean an atheist can’t understand the Catholic teaching because they don’t believe in God?

Well if you bothered to read my post you would see that what some see as part of God’s plan I see as part of Nature’s plan. I understand the Catholic teaching to be, in short, God intended sex to be unitive and procreative. The atheist version of this statement is nature designed sex to be bonding and to propagate the species.

No, I am not saying that you can’t or don’t under the Catholic teachings. I took your comment to mean that you were implying that we (Catholics) could possibly turn to atheism. If I misunderstood, then just scratch my previous comment, lol!

 

[Bookcat]

Have to admit, I didn’t read a thing you posted after this comment. But let me just say, and I am sure I speak for many others as well…don’t hold your breath.

Opps…(on my misreading too…)

She did not mean that others would become Atheists…but I think that they would understand why Contraception is contrary to the nature of the marital act.

 

[Bookcat]

Apologies …

Ok. Now back to the thread…

Is using contraception a mortal sin? Yes.

 

[samiam1611]

Opps…(on my misreading too…)

She did not mean that others would become Atheists…but I think that they would understand why Contraception is contrary to the nature of the marital act.

 

[Havard]

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.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[sw85]

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.

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.

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