Is Using Contraception a Mortal Sin?

[mgoforth]

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.

Sort of like when we were kids - most parents eventually pull out the “because I said so” card when their kids are asking “why” too much and obeying too little. When I was a child it seemed unfair, but as a parent I quickly discovered that it’s not a cop-out at all. The parent is in charge, and they usually know what’s best for the child. I’m sure everyone can see where I’m going with this analogy, but I can spell it out in detail if I’ve lost anyone…

 

[Castello]

Sort of like when we were kids - most parents eventually pull out the “because I said so” card when their kids are asking “why” too much and obeying too little. When I was a child it seemed unfair, but as a parent I quickly discovered that it’s not a cop-out at all. The parent is in charge, and they usually know what’s best for the child. I’m sure everyone can see where I’m going with this analogy, but I can spell it out in detail if I’ve lost anyone…

Someone told me once that the real sign of maturity is being able to trust “because I said so”.

 

[mgoforth]

Someone told me once that the real sign of maturity is being able to trust “because I said so”.

What about saying it to someone else? Any maturity points for that? I’m good at that part

 

[Rence]

And once again, I don’t appreciate the general negative attitude toward my reasons for not wanting kids right now. I can’t believe that so many of you would rather have another child than another doctor RIGHT NOW…Of course at some point we will have a kid, but this may be the ONLY chance my wife has to be a doctor…it makes no sense to pass that up, and the opportunity to save lifes, in order to create one more life right now instead of just waiting until she has a medical degree. It’s just astounding.

I agree with you that families must prioritize, and in our family (as well as yours) education is a priority. I don’t think your reasons to avoid/postpone a pregnany are selfish at all. All I will say to you though is that in order to do so, and be in communion with the Church, you have to use NFP to accomplish this goal. But I don’t think you’re at all being selfish (but rather prudent) in avoiding at this time.

 

[Blacksword]

Someone told me once that the real sign of maturity is being able to trust “because I said so”.

A sign of maturity, or of being an authoritarian follower? Thank God the Wright brothers, Edison, Bill Gates, the Founding Fathers, enlightenment thinkers, Einstein, or any of the other great thinkers, scientists, and inventors throughout human history didn’t think that way or we’d all still be living in caves!. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And just for the record, the uncharitable, ugly, unmerciful attitude and tone of some posters here has me thoroughly disillusioned. Way to go. I’m a recent convert to the Catholic Church, and I feel as though I found something beautiful and pure and good, something that uplifts and makes me a better person. You have, with your words here, turned that beautiful thing to ashes. I pray that God judges you kinder than you judge others.

 

[mgoforth]

A sign of maturity, or of being an authoritarian follower? Thank God the Wright brothers, Edison, Bill Gates, the Founding Fathers, enlightenment thinkers, Einstein, or any of the other great thinkers, scientists, and inventors throughout human history didn’t think that way or we’d all still be living in caves!. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And just for the record, the uncharitable, ugly, unmerciful attitude and tone of some posters here has me thoroughly disillusioned. Way to go. I’m a recent convert to the Catholic Church, and I feel as though I found something beautiful and pure and good, something that uplifts and makes me a better person. You have, with your words here, turned that beautiful thing to ashes. I pray that God judges you kinder than you judge others.

So because of a few words of disagreement on an internet forum you’re ready to throw in the towel? Certainly hope you won’t do that. To paraphrase St. Peter, “To whom would you go?” John 6:68

And as for trusting authority…doesn’t it depend a lot on who’s saying “because I said so”? It wasn’t God who told any of those thinkers to give up. It was just regular people. When God’s Church says it though, it’s kind of a different story.

 

[Castello]

A sign of maturity, or of being an authoritarian follower? Thank God the Wright brothers, Edison, Bill Gates, the Founding Fathers, enlightenment thinkers, Einstein, or any of the other great thinkers, scientists, and inventors throughout human history didn’t think that way or we’d all still be living in caves!. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And just for the record, the uncharitable, ugly, unmerciful attitude and tone of some posters here has me thoroughly disillusioned. Way to go. I’m a recent convert to the Catholic Church, and I feel as though I found something beautiful and pure and good, something that uplifts and makes me a better person. You have, with your words here, turned that beautiful thing to ashes. I pray that God judges you kinder than you judge others.

A mature Christian does trust God. As we grow, we trust more and more.

When you love someone, you trust them, Scripture tells us to “trust in the Lord with your whole heart and lean not to your own understanding”.

 

[John21652]

A sign of maturity, or of being an authoritarian follower?

Don’t you mean a follower of authoritarianism? Well, here’s the rub.No-one can actually make you follow the rules of the Church. No Priest is going to come knock on your door and say shape up or wre gonna get you. It’s ultimately a choice and an act of faith. However, even social clubs have ‘rules’ that must be followed if you want to stay signed up.

Thank God the Wright brothers, Edison, Bill Gates, the Founding Fathers, enlightenment thinkers, Einstein, or any of the other great thinkers, scientists, and inventors throughout human history didn’t think that way or we’d all still be living in caves!. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

We are not talking about the invention of material goods. We are talking about philosophical and theological truths. They have been handed down through revelation and deep reflection and they have been influenced by many who have not been Popes and Bishops and clergy of the Church. Truths don’t and can’t change, or else they weren’t truths in the first place.

And just for the record, the uncharitable, ugly, unmerciful attitude and tone of some posters here has me thoroughly disillusioned. Way to go. I’m a recent convert to the Catholic Church, and I feel as though I found something beautiful and pure and good, something that uplifts and makes me a better person. You have, with your words here, turned that beautiful thing to ashes. I pray that God judges you kinder than you judge others.

Telling people the truth is not being uncharitable. Sometimes the truth is blunt and confronting and that’s its very nature. And, as a Catholic, you would be accepting of the verdict of the Church for those who dissent, would you not? If that is the case, then prudent warnings to dissenters must be acceptable to you too. Correct?

 

[michelleds]

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 -

That’s a strong message.

And the article even has Catholic inside inverted commas.

I liked this part of the article:

Archbishop Chaput added that “if we really are Catholic, or at least if we want to be, then we need to act like it with obedience and zeal and a fire for Jesus Christ in our hearts.”

 

[Abu]

The OP’s opening post is:
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.
That requires assent to Christ as God and of His Church which teaches doctrine in His Name by His authority. Has this been accepted by jinc1019?

Blackswood #156
And I unfortunately have yet to see a compelling argument as to why it is so; it’s pretty much submit to this because Humanae Vitae says so, despite, in my opinion, good reasons why this teaching remains in a state that is not infallibly declared ex cathedra as dogma.

Nothing has been said by this poster here to show that he has now even understood that Christ gave His Church His authority and expects His followers to obey – “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” Neither that he assents to the infallible teaching against contraception.

Blacksword #298
A sign of maturity, or of being an authoritarian follower?..the uncharitable, ugly, unmerciful attitude and tone of some posters here has me thoroughly disillusioned.

Instead we have the tirade above. The same old “I” and “me” trouble, while everyone else who are followers of Christ, and offer His truth, are wrong.

We do know for certain that God is against contraception. God killed Onan for contraception (Gen 38:8-10)
We know for certain that Christ is the Son of God.
We know for certain that Christ established His Church with His authority and power to teach only truth.
We know for certain that Christ gave Peter primacy and infallibility to teach on faith and morals, protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
We know that “opinions”, wishes, desires, prejudices, feelings, have no place against truth.
We know that the definitions against every form of contraception are infallible in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930), and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).
We know the state of dissenters: Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)
That is the merciful Christ like everyone else here who has given His truth.

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied? No one can be disillusioned with Christ and claim to be “Catholic”.

 

[samiam1611]

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

Thank you, but that does not answer my question. I am asking if the number of children someone has (0 vs ≥1) changes anything because Portrait as much as said so. He said Humanae Vitae is addressing those who already have children. A closer inspection of the relevent paragraph seems to support his statement. I was under the impression Humanae Vitae was addressed to all Catholics who are married, regardless of whether or not they have already had children.

I am referring to this paragraph:

“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.”

(emphasis added)
It’s the “more” and the “additional” part that I am asking about because I never picked up on that before.

Using the OP’s situation as an example: some have said he/his wife are being selfish by making their education and finances a higher priority than having children. Would people be saying this if the OP already had children? Are they only accusing him of being selfish because he is currently childless? If so, could you, Portrait, or anyone point me to where it says having a first baby requires a more serious reason than having subsequent babies?

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[onmyknees]

Blacksword, Have you read these verses in scripture from Jesus?

John 16:12 (On the magisterium and the Pope being guided by the Holy Spirit in all teachings.) Jesus says to his apostles, " I have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete Truth.

Matt 16:18 (On the authority of the Chuch) Jesus says to Peter, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock’ I will build my Church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Just thought this would help you understand The Church better. Still praying for you.

 

[Abu]

samiam1611 #304
I was under the impression Humanae Vitae was addressed to all Catholics who are married, regardless of whether or not they have already had children.

Undoubtedly.

The real issue in this thread is the reality that contraception is gravely evil and that NBR is a worthy endeavour for serious, just, reasons. The individual couple has to prayerfully and with counseling, if needed, decide what for them constitute just, serious reasons.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

As Janet Smith points out *Humanae Vitae *16, specifies as necessary: “just reasons, “worthy and weighty justifications” and “defensible reasons” for limiting their family size.
Moral Use of NFP, in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, p 461].

 

[Abu]

The need for fraternal correction which Christ mandated is emphatically brought to our attention for Lent by the Holy Father.

tinyurl.com/6ryc7xn
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2012
“Let us be concerned for each other,
to stir a response in love and good works” (Heb 10:24)

“1. “Let us be concerned for each other”: responsibility towards our brothers and sisters.”

Extract:
“Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

It’s clear to me from posts like this one that in pointing out the logical inconsistencies in this teaching I’ve basically excommunicated myself according to you, and I and all my loved ones are bound for eternal hellfire. Thanks for the judgment by the way.

First, realize that no one is excommunicated for using artificial contraception, secondly, nowhere did I say that you and your loved ones are bound to eternal hellfire. You obviously are very sensitive about this issue and are taking things very personally. I’m not here to ruffle your feathers, but rather to explain to you that the Church’s position on NFP is not irrational, inconsistent or self-serving.

Using artificial contraception is a serious sin, and anyone who knowingly rejects Church teaching and willfully acts against it has to live with that rebellion on their conscience and on their soul. Furthermore there are religious denominations that tailor their teachings to the opinions of their members. This might make people feel very comfortable, but that is certainly not the way of truth. Jesus never said Christianity would be easy, on the contrary, it is through the pain and struggle of the cross that God weaves holiness and saintliness in a soul.

First, I’m not being “silly”, but rational. The fundamental problem I think is that in discussing NFP, you are employing clever word games by crafting self-serving, largely ad hoc definitions of terms so as to make your case. You define NFP fundamentally as “not doing something” i.e. having sex, but this is only half of the equation, and we all know it. If it were just “not having sex” it wouldn’t be NFP, but rather “total abstinence”.

You’re certainly free to think you’re right and the Church and our popes are irrational, but the reason why I sincerely know you are wrong is because Natural Family Planning uses natural means to have—or not have a baby.

Another classic example which illustrates the huge difference in moral and immoral means is when a couple is infertile. Realize that NFP is also used by couples who reject the persuasions of the world which tells an infertile couple to use sinful means like In vitro Fertilization (IVF)— which conceives children in a test tube with masturbated sperm, or other means such as hiring a female as a surrogate mother to be impregnated with the masturbated (sin) sperm of the father. The Church says no to this, much like is says no to using condoms, chemicals, vasectomies and tied tubes. NFP employs Napro Technology to healing a woman from the ailment which is causing the infertility and allowing the natural means of having a child (sexual intercourse) to work.

Artificial contraception and IVF are sinful, unnatural means. Instead of bellyaching and complaining about Church teaching you should study the wisdom behind it. Much has been written about it, many resources. I would recommend Patrick Coffin’s book Sex al Natural .

This is an example of the word games being used regarding NFP in argumentation on the topic. NFP is NOT “not doing something”, it’s precisely determining when TO DO SOMETHING (i.e. have sex)! It is a program designed to determine when to act on sexual impulses and when not to, so using analogies that compare it ONLY to not doing something is intellectually dishonest and invalid argumentation.

Again, NFP is used for both achieving conception or avoiding (only for serious reason). You might have the impulse to have relations in your wife at the wrong place and the wrong time, it doesn’t mean you should act on it. There are plenty of examples I can give you of when to not act on your impulse alone. You seem to have no problem calling people irrational, intellectually dishonest and “self-serving”, yet you’re the one with the ruffled feathers claiming you are right and the Church is wrong. Christ calls us to do difficult things. The problem with many Catholic is that they live no different than non-Catholics. To think that Holy Matrimony is simply a license to have sex is a serious mistake. The sacred vow is intimately linked to the creation of new eternal and unique souls for the Kingdom of God.

And again, the other actions that must be taken in utilizing NFP “in anticipation of the marital act” are absolutely unusual, exacting, and highly involved.

NFP is only for serious extreme cases. But charting a cycle becomes routine and it easily identifies the days when one should definitely have sex in order to conceive. Just ask all the women with babies today who have a hard time conceiving. As for avoiding a conception, NFP it is only allowed when there is a serious condition.

To use the poor analogy made earlier; you wouldn’t be going to such extremes to “check the weather” if you didn’t have a contraceptive intent! You’d just head outside when you wished, as it were, and take what comes.

Again, is there are many serious legitimate reasons to avoid pregnancy, such a toxic pregnancy, serious illnesses treated by prescription drugs that would be harmful if not fatal to the baby, etc. etc. Natural means would be to abstain from sex. There is nothing wrong with abstaining or fasting from legitimate goods, when there is a reason to do so.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

when you talk about “trashing the seed” you conveniently ignore the fact that if one has engaged in sexual relations with one’s spouse purposefully during a time one KNOWS their spouse is infertile, one is also “wasting the seed” every bit as much.

Again, Natural Family Planning does not employ rubber balloons, contraptions, chemicals or bodily mutilation to avoid the pregnancy. It uses the natural recourse, and again, only in serious extreme situations.

If, for instance, a wife provides completion to her husband orally, her mouth is, frankly, every bit as fertile as her womb is at this time, meaning not at all. Even completing the act “the old fashioned way” still wastes the seed in this respect, as is fully INTENDED by the parties,

The difference is that the act which you describe is sinful. Natural sexual intercourse between husband and wife is not sinful. There are Catholics who also question the Church’s teaching against homosexual sex, (which Scripture calls an abomination because it is not natural, and intrinsically evil.)

as it will be lost outside the wife’s body on the bedsheets or in the toilet all the same,
and otherwise die.

Again condoms are a trap set with the specific intention of trapping every single sperm from going into its intended trajectory to avoid a pregnancy. Natural Family Planning does not thwart the natural environment, and again, in serious extreme cases only.

the only argument that can be cogently put forward that doesn’t amount to assuming the consequent, ad hoc rationalization, or other inconsistencies is one from authority: the unitive and procreative ends of sex cannot EVER be separated or served one without the other, and this is so because the Church says so. That’s it really.

I disagree. The Church has put forth plenty of reasons why artificial contraception it is evil and harmful to individuals, to spouses, to children, to families ad to society itself. And one of the reasons why culture is rioting at the hands of many Catholics who think they can dismiss Church teaching with impunity.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

for any husbands out there who have ever had the misfortune of being relegated in the bedroom to “walking sperm donor” when the wife wishes to have another baby (you know, the “I’m ovulating now so just do it and get it over with” kind of unloving, dispassionate sex-for-procreation only intercourse that is all too common when the wife has baby-making on her mind) this should be equally denounced by the Church as evil, destroying the unitive purpose of sex…

I would think that a husband who truly loves his wife would not feel that way, and a wife that sees her spouse as a mere sperm donor needs to see him as a husband. A husband blesses his wife by making her a mother, and a wife blesses her husband a making him a father. The problem with people today is that they have watched to many movies with steamy sex scenes that has distorted, contaminated, and poisoned their view of sex disfiguring to merely a means to pure self gratification–with the conception of a child as a negative side-effect that needs to be rejected and in many cases killed.

You see, many Catholics have been brainwashed to march lock step with the world which is guided by the master of this world. And that master makes war on the Holy Spirit The Giver of Life itself. Thus people like President Obama can speak of pregnancy as a “punishment” and pass laws which provide contraception on demand as a “medical need” as if the gift of being with child was a disease or a virus. The conception of a child means that the body is working just fine.

God wants the love of spouses for one another to be pure, and a total giving of self between spouses find its expression in the conjugal act. Natural Family Planning ia made available for couples who are suffering extreme serious conditions and do not have to resort to intrinsically sinful methods.

And yet I have seen no encyclicals declaring spouses must bring passion to the bedroom as best they can on pain of mortal sin. If one end of sex can NEVER be served in any single act without the serving of the other though, this would be equally sinful.

Holy Matrimony is a vocation that is just as important as a religious vocation or a call to Holy Orders. In Holy Matrimony they spouses make a vow to be open to life within the teachings of the Church. But the Church makes exceptions such as the use of Natural Family Planning in cases of severe hardship. The problem is that many Catholics view marriage in a very worldly way and are not living up to their vocation. would suggest you study The Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. I think your position

It’s not just abstaining from sex, as I’ve said already, and we all know it. NFP is both abstaining and partaking, more analogous in your example of eating to fasting and binge eating than to just fasting. So no, I’m not blinded, I’m rational and objective

Resentment always blinds. So much so that it makes one think they are wiser than the teachings of Christ as He speaks through His Church.

I’ve struggled intellectually with this teaching and still do. I’ve been told numerous times by priests that in my situation what I have discerned in my faith walk is acceptable and permissible, and that I need not fear of mortal sin for my actions in my bedroom with my wife. And no, just to pre-emptively respond to posters suspicions on this front, we do not use condoms and NEVER have, nor has my wife ever been on the pill.

I have no idea what your situation is and it is not my place to need to know
But a Catholic is bound to follow the teachings of the Church, not the opinions of individual priests. I’m not saying this is your situation because I have no idea what it is. I say this because there are many priests who do not follow Church teaching and guide many down the wrong path. For example, there are those who say it is fine for a woman to have her tubes tied or a man to get fixed by having a vasectomy as a permanent solution to the bother of having children. But as the saying goes, the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops.

I’m going to trust the direction of my confessor and priest, and my own prayerful discernment and seeking over the word of anonymous laypersons on the internet who are, I am guessing, not theologians, do not speak for the Church, and who basically provide huge experts of cut and paste quotes from encyclicals, papal interviews, and other NON-infallible sources and then declare me excommunicated without even knowing anything about me.

I have no idea what it is you are doing that is making you so resentful to Church teaching. Suffice it to say that artificial contraception and vasectomies are sinful.

Lastly, it’s great that Janet Smith has done “exhaustive research” on the matter, but it seems most actual researchers in sexual health, marital and family therapy, and related disciplines are not finding these connections. For my own education on this matter however, since I will freely admit to ignorance as to Professor Smith’s work, what peer-reviewed academic journals has her research been published in?

You’ve obviously not listened to here talks. It behooves you to take the time to at least listen to the talk given by Prof. Janet E Smith. I’ve given you the links to the talks. Listen to them. She gives the mountains of evidence you claim do not exist and the reputable sources you require. Here are the links again:

janetsmith.excerptsofinri.com/audio/contrapception-why-not-01.mp3

janetsmith.excerptsofinri.com/audio/contrapception-why-not-02.mp3

The problem with a contraceptive mentality is that is echoes the words “I shall not serve” But a total self-giving to God is to make Him Lord of your life and He will provide all your needs.

 

[Portrait]

Thank you, but that does not answer my question. I am asking if the number of children someone has (0 vs ≥1) changes anything because Portrait as much as said so. He said Humanae Vitae is addressing those who already have children. A closer inspection of the relevent paragraph seems to support his statement. I was under the impression Humanae Vitae was addressed to all Catholics who are married, regardless of whether or not they have already had children.

I am referring to this paragraph:

“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.”

(emphasis added)
It’s the “more” and the “additional” part that I am asking about because I never picked up on that before.

Dear samiam,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your questions and my aplogies for the delay in responding to your post, but I was rather tired yesteday evening.

First, as Abu says, Humanae Vitae is undoubtedly applicable to all the Catholic faithful, but it is tacitly assumed, my dear friend, that all spouses will naturally start a family, once they have entered into wedlock. Pro-creation is, after all, the primary purpose of marriage, for God commanded the very first pair to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…”(Gen. 1: 28). The pleasure attached to the indulgence of sensual passion is secondary, in view of the primary purpose which is the generation of offspring. Indeed, this is why artificial birth prevention is so morally wrong, for the birth controller satisfies passion for the sake of passion, thus violating the moral order established by God. As St. Augustine said in the fourth century, “Relations with one’s wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain”. The honourable estate of marriage is utterly vitiated if it is turned into merely sensual satisfaction.

Second, the Catholic Church is not opposed to moderating the number of children (which is precisely what your quote from HV is saying) by lawful means and where there are serious and just reasons. Thus, dear friend, a couple can either by self-control and mutual consent refrain from the use of marital privileges, or they can practice NFP. However, the traditional teaching of the Church, based on God’s command to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1: 28), has always been that newly wed couples will consumate the marriage and start a family.

Third, all childbirth involves an element of risk to the mother, but the mere possibilty of danger would not warrant the avoidance of the marital privileges. However, if trustworthy health professionals have said that death will certainly ensue from conceiving a child, then the moral theology of the Church says that a wife is justified in refusing conjugal relations with her husband. In that instance the husband has an obligation to practice self-restraint and continence, being satisfied with the other great benefits of married life such as mutual love and companionship etc. If the marriage strong and good in other areas this will not be deemed too great a demand upon the husband.

samiam, without wishing to deviate from the topic under review, let me say that we sadly we live in a topsy-turvy world nowadays and men and women are no longer walking in the old paths, wherein is the good way to live, ordained by God for their happiness and spiritual well-being. Materially speaking, we have all prospered in the Western world and have never had it so good, yet spiritually we are “wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked”, in other words the souls of men are starving in the midst of all their abundance and, alas, they do not realize that material affluence will not enrich the soul or give the solid joys and lasting treasures which truly do satisfy. Apologies for that little digression, dear friend, but men and women, including, I am sorry to say, some who profess religion, do put non-spiritual considerations above all else prior to starting a family. They convince themselves that they just do not have the financial wherewithal to have a child, but this very often means that the women is not prepared to resign her employment and graciously accept the Divinely ordained role of motherhood. This would, of course, entail the husband being the sole breadwinner and having to live more modestly and do without luxuries, and this they are not prepared to do under any circumstances. Now I would freely admit that there are cases where the addition of a child would result in severe suffering and privation, but these instances are not as common as some would have us believe. More typically, it is not so much a matter of not being able to survive on the basic comforts and necessities of life, but more about living an affluent lifestyle and wanting for nothing. We have come to expect so much more than forefathers, to such an extent, that if we do not enjoy a certain standard of living then we think we are on the margins of society - social outcasts with everyone regarding us with contempt. It is my firm conviction that this is what chiefly motivates newly weds into postponing starting a family nowadays, not shortage of money as such.

Trust that goes some way in answering your questions, my dear friend. God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Bookcat]

From the CA Guest who often appears on Catholic Answers Live to discuss Bio-ethics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124