Mass with spouse who contracepts

[lifeisbeautiful]

NFP, IUDs, the pill all do the same thing, prevent pregnancy. Yes the church states NFP is ok but the others are not. The Church also states that abuse of food or alcohol, body piercings, abusing ones body, etc. are forbidden. How many here have their ears pierced? How many here have gone out Saturday night and had way too much to drink but still received communion on Sunday.How many are obese? All of these things go against the Churches teaching. Where does using a IUD fit into being a mortal sin?

Unless we go to confession everyday the majority of us are unworthy to receive communion on Sunday. I can see where this is a huge issue for some, but I agree that we should master the basics before we start to think we know everything God wants from us.

Having one’s ears pierced is not a sin, much less a mortal one… We are not worthy to receive Communion ( “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”) but under normal circumstances, unless we are in mortal sin (or have eaten in the last hour), if we have had our First Communion we should most definitely receive Communion, every day if possible.

ETA: Being obese is not a mortal sin either, drunkenness is grave matter, I agree with that one. Sure a person has to avoid gluttony, but that does not mean that a person that is obese must have a mortal sin on their soul right now (or ever). Using ABC is grave matter, having extra pounds is not.

 

[einna]

Having one’s ears pierced is not a sin, much less a mortal one… We are not worthy to receive Communion ( “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”) but under normal circumstances, unless we are in mortal sin (or have eaten in the last hour), if we have had our First Communion we should most definitely receive Communion, every day if possible.

ETA: Being obese is not a mortal sin either, drunkenness is grave matter, I agree with that one. Sure a person has to avoid gluttony, but that does not mean that a person that is obese must have a mortal sin on their soul right now (or ever). Using ABC is grave matter, having extra pounds is not.

In Leviticus it say “do not put tattoo marks on yourself. I am the Lord your God” (19.28). At one time any piecing or lasting marks were seen as a sin against the health body gave us. I never said being obese was a mortal sin, but again where is it that using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.

 

[Xantippe]

einna,

I suggest that you talk to a priest about what is and isn’t a mortal sin, as you seem confused about what is and isn’t Catholic teaching.

We as Catholics are not bound by the Mosaic law of Leviticus. We can eat shrimp, rabbit, ham and gravy, wear textiles with more than one fiber, and we observe our holy day on Sunday, not Saturday. There are many distinctions between our Catholic practices and traditional Jewish practices. In fact, if you have a good look at the New Testament, you will observe that the question of how much of the Mosaic law to have non-Jewish Christians observe was a major issue in 1st century Christianity, and it was resolved in favor of very minimal requirements.

 

[einna]

einna,

I suggest that you talk to a priest about what is and isn’t a mortal sin, as you seem confused about what is and isn’t Catholic teaching.

We as Catholics are not bound by the Mosaic law of Leviticus. We can eat shrimp, rabbit, ham and gravy, wear textiles with more than one fiber, and we observe our holy day on Sunday, not Saturday. There are many distinctions between our Catholic practices and traditional Jewish practices. In fact, if you have a good look at the New Testament, you will observe that the question of how much of the Mosaic law to have non-Jewish Christians observe was a major issue in 1st century Christianity, and it was resolved in favor of very minimal requirements.

I have talked to many, many priest and I could talk to thousands more and they would never all agree on if this is a mortal sin or not. I also spoke to a priest when I did artificial insemination, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked. You speak like every single priest in the world is going to give the same exact response to every question.

 

[Xantippe]

I had in mind the more global question of what defines mortal sin, which there is a lot of agreement on. I believe the answer is 1) serious matter 2) done in full consciousness that the action is sinful 3) done with full consent of the will (i.e. not while sleepwalking or under anesthesia)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin

The important thing here is that we cannot say that X is a mortal sin. X, done knowing it is sinful, and with full consent of the will, may be a mortal sin, but X by itself is not a mortal sin.

Take for instance your example of obesity. Aside from binge overeaters (who may in fact have trouble with “full consent of the will”), most people who get fat do so one cookie or extra slice of pizza at a time–it’s a very incremental process. A cookie is pretty much the definition of not “serious matter.” So, Suzie who has one extra cookie with dinner every night may be getting steadily fatter, but she is not committing a mortal sin every night.

 

[PaulinVA]

I have talked to many, many priest and I could talk to thousands more and they would never all agree on if this is a mortal sin or not. I also spoke to a priest when** I did artificial insemination**, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked. You speak like every single priest in the world is going to give the same exact response to every question.

It seems pretty simple.

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain** morally unacceptable**. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

 

[Julian_Bashir]

I have talked to many, many priest and I could talk to thousands more and they would never all agree on if this is a mortal sin or not. I also spoke to a priest when I did artificial insemination, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked. You speak like every single priest in the world is going to give the same exact response to every question.

That is such false logic. I could argue that if I had loaded a gun and pulled the trigger, I would have not been shot if God had wanted me to avoid the bullet. Come one.

I have a hard time believing that most priests would have told you something contrary to Church teaching. But even if they do, the topic is addressed in Catechism, which is binding a far as Catholic teaching (see the post above mine). Why not simply read that? There is no escaping what the Church teaches in this case.

 

[einna]

That is such false logic. I could argue that if I had loaded a gun and pulled the trigger, I would have not been shot if God had wanted me to avoid the bullet. Come one.

I have a hard time believing that most priests would have told you something contrary to Church teaching. But even if they do, the topic is addressed in Catechism, which is binding a far as Catholic teaching (see the post above mine). Why not simply read that? There is no escaping what the Church teaches in this case.

Again, I did not say that MOST priest told me something contrary to Church teaching, I said I have spoken to many and that there are more that would tell me the same thing. I am not trying to escape anything, I am stating that I do not believe it is a mortal sin. When speaking to the priests I also talked about leaving the Church over issues such as these and they did not tell me I should leave the church over it. They told me to pray about it and to follow my conscious which I did and I am ready to face God and have Him judge me. Maybe the posters wife did the same.

 

[Rau]

Interesting, but Caps aside, would you have said the same if she quoted Pope Pius XII using the word grave (and no, this isn’t a “bad translation”)… Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that you can find different terms in different documents, which is why it is important to take the whole document into consideration (and the Catechism clearly uses the word just), but I do think it is a bit strong to suggest that if someone uses the word grave they do not have authentic knowledge of the teaching because of the use of that term (I have not read the rest, I just randomly got on here and saw this post yesterday, and thought it would be helpful to show a document on the Vatican’s site that uses that word (a document which is referenced in Humanae Vitae when saying ‘the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses.’)

Looking at the full set of Kah07’s posts on this thread, it is clear he/she is not seeking to contribute constructively, and has no effective understanding of the teachings. To characterise the teaching by a single, (capitalised!) word, isolated from the context in which it is used, and which is not used in the catechism, is not a genuine attempt to contribute.

 

[einna]

To the original post, I think the poster needs to decide to save his marriage or his wife’s soul. Only one of those he truly has a say. We are all sinners. He needs to decide if he wants this issue to end his marriage or not, because it most likely will if he pushes this issue, but that is his decision to make. I hope it works out for him.

 

[Xantippe]

“To the original post, I think the poster needs to decide to save his marriage or his wife’s soul. Only one of those he truly has a say. We are all sinners. He needs to decide if he wants this issue to end his marriage or not, because it most likely will if he pushes this issue, but that is his decision to make. I hope it works out for him.”

There’s a lot of truth to what you say. On the other hand, it would be quite horrifying if his wife were to become pregnant with the IUD and then miscarry because of the IUD (which happens not infrequently). On the one hand, it would not be his fault, on the other hand, it would be a very difficult thing to live with.

 

[underacloud]

To the original post, I think the poster needs to decide to save his marriage or his wife’s soul.

No he doesn’t. It’s a false dichotomy.

Clearly saving his wife’s soul is of greater (eternal) importance. The question is how he can best go about this. Forcing the issue and potentially wrecking the marriage is not the best way. Which is perhaps what you meant anyway.

Remaining committed to his marriage, avoiding confrontation that is unlikely to be fruitful (noting that sometimes confrontation regarding sin is merited), revisiting the issue in a constructive manner when possible, and continuing in prayer and patient love will be the best approach to this issue.

 

[einna]

“To the original post, I think the poster needs to decide to save his marriage or his wife’s soul. Only one of those he truly has a say. We are all sinners. He needs to decide if he wants this issue to end his marriage or not, because it most likely will if he pushes this issue, but that is his decision to make. I hope it works out for him.”

There’s a lot of truth to what you say. On the other hand, it would be quite horrifying if his wife were to become pregnant with the IUD and then miscarry because of the IUD (which happens not infrequently). On the one hand, it would not be his fault, on the other hand, it would be a very difficult thing to live with.

Well what is also sad is that my mother, knowing she did not want or could not handle anymore children than the 4 she already had got pregnant using NFP. As a result she had a “nervous breakdown” and became a 24/7 alcoholic. It took her 7 years to stop drinking. It completely destroyed her marriage, our family, and everyone of her children. I was that oops baby and my two brothers have never had anything to do with me since the day I was born. The consequence were more than I could ever explain.

As a woman who knows what a huge gift and responsibility it is to carry a child, to be consumed every minute of everyday with that responsibility for nine months, we are aware of the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strain there is to carrying that child. From what we eat, to our breathing, to how much we sleep, the responsibility is endless. Woman today are not selfish in not having more children. I would have loved to have many more children, but I believe God helped me see what was best for the children I already had. I still don’t see the difference in using NFP and other birth control just from the explaintion of the Church, which by the way as not be right in every single thing it has said or done throughout history. I am not say the Church is wrong here, I am say that I do not believe it is a sin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In Leviticus it say “do not put tattoo marks on yourself. I am the Lord your God” (19.28). At one time any piecing or lasting marks were seen as a sin against the health body gave us. I never said being obese was a mortal sin, but again where is it that using artificial birth control is a mortal sin.

The Roman Catholic Church is not sola scriptura, nor would any faithful Jesuit every believe so. (In case you’re planning on pulling out the Jesuit card again. ) The Church, who has been ordained by Jesus Himself to Bind and Loose when it comes to the more essential borders of sin, guides us that merely piercing one’s ears is not necessarily disfigurement, but certain more extreme kinds of actual disfigurement could be failure to honor God’s creation. (Depends on the degree, the harm, etc.)

Vatican documents say that artificial birth control is mortally sinful. That’s who. The same Church that Jesus Christ, our Founder, instituted.

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT METHODS OF BIRTH CONTROL?

Are some forms of unnatural birth control worse than others? Yes. Those
forms that act after conception has occurred to prevent the continuation
of the pregnancy participate in the additional evil of abortion. “From the
moment of its conception life must be guarded with greatest care, while
abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Gaudium et Spes, 51).

Surgical abortion is the most obvious but not the only form. The
intrauterine device (IUD) acts primarily as an early abortion agent by
preventing implantation of the week-old human life.

The birth control Pill makes the inner lining of the uterus very hostile
to implantation. It is not known how often the Pill acts in this way, but
it cannot be denied that the Pill may be acting as an early abortion agent
in any given cycle in any given woman.[4]

ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

Literally, no one is “worthy” to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist, including the Pope, and no human being on earth will ever be. All human beings are fallen. The fact that we are fallen does not preclude the Church from issuing statements about moral transgressions. She does so by virtue of Revelation (Scripture & Tradition). The Church is not merely a human institution. She is at once human and divine, guided to be free from error when she teaches specifically on faith and morals (only), because Jesus promised our Church the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Dear HoosierDaddy.
I have never disagreed with the teachings, however, when St.Paul did write his letters there was in fact no organized Catholic Church. And as you know most of what we today learn and practice is something that did not exist then. So if there was no Mass order or anything we have today, there was no confession at that time, BTW, we must suppose that the only sins recognized was those Christ had teached. But I am most certanly wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

. But I am most certanly wrong.

Yes. You are. You said it was not in the Bible. The Bible specifically addressed it. You discounted that with some sort of false understanding of the early church that you either are using to not see something that is written plain as day or have been mislead about. There was the eucharist in the early Church. THAT IS WHAT PAUL IS WRITING ABOUT.

I will ask you. What would that passage have to say differently to make you understand the point about the Eucharist.

Christ did not "only teach about sins in the Bible pages that quote him. Your assumptions have no basis in Catholic or Christian theology or history.

There was confession, and there was every type of sin known to man. Where are you coming up with these ideas about the Early Church? Who is telling you these false assumptions?

 

[einna]

The Roman Catholic Church is not sola scriptura, nor would any faithful Jesuit every believe so. (In case you’re planning on pulling out the Jesuit card again. ) The Church, who has been ordained by Jesus Himself to Bind and Loose when it comes to the more essential borders of sin, guides us that merely piercing one’s ears is not necessarily disfigurement, but certain more extreme kinds of actual disfigurement could be failure to honor God’s creation. (Depends on the degree, the harm, etc.)

Vatican documents say that artificial birth control is mortally sinful. That’s who. The same Church that Jesus Christ, our Founder, instituted.

ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

Elizabeth,

I am not playing the “Jesuit card” but how nice of you to be so sweetly condescending. There was a very good reason that Pope Francis was voted in as our new Pope so unanimously so quickly and if you know the Jesuits, you know that they have not always been that highly thought of among other Catholics in the past. I might be completely wrong, but there are many who believe that all those priest that voted him in were looking for him to possibly have a Vatican III because so many people around the world are leaving the Church over issues like these, not over IUDs but other forms of birth control. There are many Catholics that feel that the Church is saying too much about too many things in peoples’ lives, like some governments. Your naive if you think that the Vatican is not worrying about losing followers and why.

Literally, no one is “worthy” to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist, including the Pope, and no human being on earth will ever be. All human beings are fallen. The fact that we are fallen does not preclude the Church from issuing statements about moral transgressions. She does so by virtue of Revelation (Scripture & Tradition). The Church is not merely a human institution. She is at once human and divine, guided to be free from error when she teaches specifically on faith and morals (only), because Jesus promised our Church the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

einna:
I would advise you to look up the Catholic term. “State of Grace” and learn. I also would tell you that Pope Francis was not elected to run the Church as a business and get more customers. You are misunderstanding and absolutely misrepresenting any sort of Catholic faith. The Pope will not “change Birth Control rules.” precisely because he cannot change them. You seem to be confused and think the Church is like a government that votes in a polititian. It is not. The Pope does not have the power to do what you say.

 

[einna]

I would advise you to look up the Catholic term. “State of Grace” and learn. I also would tell you that Pope Francis was not elected to run the Church as a business and get more customers. You are misunderstanding and absolutely misrepresenting any sort of Catholic faith. The Pope will not “change Birth Control rules.” precisely because he cannot change them. You seem to be confused and think the Church is like a government that votes in a polititian. It is not. The Pope does not have the power to do what you say.

You seemed to have misread what I said. No where did I say the Pope has the power to do anything on his own. JP II did not handle Vatican on his own. You make it sound like nothing that has to do with the Church or the Vatican could ever been impure, which I would have thought the corruption and sexual abuse would have shown you that is simply not true. Many things can be changed in the Church if inspired by God, isn’t that right. I am not saying that will or will not happen, but I am pretty sure you are going to be very sure of what will and will not happen, and of course you will be right.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You seemed to have misread what I said. No where did I say the Pope has the power to do anything on his own. JP II did not handle Vatican on his own. You make it sound like nothing that has to do with the Church or the Vatican could ever been impure, which I would have thought the corruption and sexual abuse would have shown you that is simply not true. Many things can be changed in the Church if inspired by God, isn’t that right. I am not saying that will or will not happen, but I am pretty sure you are going to be very sure of what will and will not happen, and of course you will be right.

Einna, After reading some pas posts of yours. I wish to inquire why you are Catholic at all? There are other Churches that fit your beliefs. I am not saying this to be mean. I generally want to know. You reject so much of what the Church teaches. So why are you a member of that Church?