Why are condoms wrong?

[Truthlover]

Choose to love,

We have to apply our conscience always. The primacy of conscience is addressed directly by Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. In this letter he holds that conscience is supreme and, therefore, cannot come into collision with the Church’s or the Pope’s infallibility. See:

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

Newman writes:

“The Divine Law,” says Cardinal Gousset, “is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the fourth Lateran Council says, ‘Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam.’”

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
The argument in favour of NFP ignores the damage done on the days when the couple should not perform the conjugal act to the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. This damage is not called “sin” but “chastity” when clearly the aim of abstaining is contraception.

Totally false, and self-serving. This persistent tilting at windmills is characteristic of the dissenter. No one can be a faithful Catholic and dissent in statement or action from the infallible definitive teaching against contraception in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).

**Facing Reality
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Jan 26, 2005 (EWTN): **
“It is helpful to distinguish between objective and subjective contraception. A couple that has sexual relations only during the infertile times in order to avoid pregnancy does not objectively contracept for the simple reason that there is nothing there to contracept. However, a couple that does this for less than serious reasons subjectively contracepts. In other words, their intention is contraceptive. This would be an abuse of NFP and is as seriously wrong as objectively contracepting.”
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN):
“You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act.”
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Oct-30-2003 (EWTN):
“…while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.

Pope Paul in HV11, in a little studied section of the encyclical *Humanae Vitae *when commenting on abstinence among married couples wrote: “The discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence; husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility.”
How true – self-control is enhanced, the warp and woof of developing fidelity to Christ and neighbour.

**Church Teaching And The Morality Of Contraception **
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SEXSAN.TXT (Chapter 6 of Sex And The Sanctity Of Human Life by William E. May published by Christendom Press, Ft. Royal, VA.)
De Margerie observes that "every matrimonial act should be ‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain barren."10 A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or age or disease.
There is a significant “moral” difference between a conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease and one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the free choice of the spouses.
Notes:
10. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., “Reflections on Some Aspects of *Humanae vitae *To Which Less Consideration Has Been Given,” L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition May 25, 1978. See also Elisabeth Anscombe, *Contraception and Chastity *(London: Catholic Truth Society, 1976), pp. 20-23.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
The primacy of conscience is addressed directly by Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk. In this letter he holds that conscience is supreme and, therefore, cannot come into collision with the Church’s or the Pope’s infallibility.

But why? Naturally it cannot IF the Catholic is faithful to truth AND conscience. In Veritatis Splendor #64, Pope John Paul II teaches;……“freedom of conscience” is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth…because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

Persistently you prove quite unable to make a case against Christ’s Vicars – you’re not a truth lover you are a self-lover. Cardinal Newman gets it right, you bungle it.

The Pope Or Conscience? Catholic Dossier, Jan Feb ‘98]
by Janet E. Smith
Sadly sometimes Newman is invoked in support of the reprehensible position that conscience trumps Church teaching. His famous toast in the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “I shall drink to the Pope, if you please – still to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards,” taken out of context, may seem to suggest that Newman is an advocate of the liberty of conscience over Church teaching. Placed in context nothing could be further from the truth, for Newman is speaking not of a pope who is teaching the faithful Church doctrine, but who is dictating to the faithful what to do in concrete particular situations, an area in which the pope does not enjoy infallibility. Newman is not talking about such moral doctrines as the condemnation of contraception; indeed, Newman gives as examples papal dictates that we must be teetotalers or that it is mandatory to hold lotteries for the missions.

Yet even in these arenas, Newman does not allow the conscience to have free play. He states: “If in a particular case, [the conscience] is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it."

What Newman is saying here is that if the conscience of a Catholic goes against the Church, the Catholic should presume that the Church is right and he is wrong. And this is in reference to teetotaling and lotteries! Yes, we must all follow our consciences, the conscience must always reign supreme, but a Catholic conscience should be formed by the Church.

Many theologians seem to have decided that the Church and the Pope are an obstacle to freedom of conscience; they so loathe blind obedience that they are much more comfortable with blind disobedience. [End of extract]

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

You quote me:

“The argument in favour of NFP ignores the damage done on the days when the couple should not perform the conjugal act to the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. This damage is not called “sin” but “chastity” when clearly the aim of abstaining is contraception.”

You then claim I am:

Totally false, and self-serving. This persistent tilting at windmills is characteristic of the dissenter. No one can be a faithful Catholic and dissent in statement or action from the infallible definitive teaching against contraception in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).

You are missing the point, I hope purely in error. The attention, in your quote of my posting, is on the fertile days when the couple using NFP avoid the conjugal act. On any particular day they abstain they destroy both the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act; non-abortive contraception used on the same day maintains the unitive aspect and a small percentage of the procreative aspect. If on that particular day the couple would, in love, like to perform the conjugal act contraception is better than NFP as NFP would destroy both aspects…

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

Persistently you prove quite unable to make a case against Christ’s Vicars – you’re not a truth lover you are a self-lover. Cardinal Newman gets it right, you bungle it.

The Pope Or Conscience? Catholic Dossier, Jan Feb ‘98]
by Janet E. Smith

Yet even in these arenas, Newman does not allow the conscience to have free play. He states: “If in a particular case, [the conscience] is to be taken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, in order to prevail against the voice of the Pope, must follow upon serious thought, prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judgment on the matter in question. Unless a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great sin in disobeying it."

I would appreciate it if you confined the debate to logical argument and avoided personal insults.

The German bishops stated in their pastoral letter of 22 September, 1967, that the ordinary, non-definitive teaching of the church:

Quote:
Can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors. (The New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak ed, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota,1987, pg 622)

This agrees with your Newman quote above which actually confirms my argument. Newman in his next paragraph writes:

"Now, I shall end this part of the subject, for I have not done with it altogether, by appealing to various of our theologians in evidence that, in what I have been saying, I have not misrepresented Catholic doctrine on these important points.

That is, on the duty of obeying our conscience at all hazards."

Please note: “obeying our conscience at all hazards”.

I believe that an informed conscience will rarely differ from Church teaching, but where it does our Church says we must follow our conscience or we sin. This is Church teaching as can be seen from my earlier posts.

 

[Lypher]

Even whilst I was Catholic, I had trouble coming to grips with why it would be immoral. I can certainly understand how condoms can promote infidelity, but you did specify within the context of marriage.

I guess to supplement your understanding of it, you’d have to read Humanae Vitae (1968) - which is an encyclical by Pope Paul VI who first wrote explicitly about it in response to increasing Church pressure to allow contraceptives within the Church. Others speak of “Theology of the Body” which was a series of lectures by Pope John Paul II over many years, it has been made into a book, and many Catholics find the reasonings clear through Theology of the Body, I haven’t read it, but I hear it’s good, perhaps you want to look into it.

I think the philosophy behind it isn’t very easy to grasp, so Pope John Paul II and other authors like Christopher West have put it into much easier language for the general populace to understand.

This is a great post…and Humanae Vitae is why I am converting from LCMS to Catholicism. I was a contracepting protestant, but even at my late age my wife and I are now open, maybe no more children, then again we will leave it up to god. Once Adam starts doing some reading on his own he will see the wisdom of Paul…Boy did he call what was going to happen to our culture. One more soul is another good site…any way good luck Adam…

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
The German bishops stated in their pastoral letter of 22 September, 1967, that the ordinary, non-definitive teaching of the church “Can, and on occasion actually does, fall into errors.”

That is just barely possible, but the fact that there is no evidence produced of this speaks volumes. Further, as this does not apply to the definitive doctrine against any form of contraception, it is meaningless. For even with non-definitive doctrine we are not free even here to choose to disobey. In post #170 you can learn from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25: Even non-infallible doctrine on faith and morals requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…”
Once again your selfism has no backing.

I believe that an informed conscience will rarely differ from Church teaching, but where it does our Church says we must follow our conscience or we sin.

You put the cart before the horse. Since the Catholic conscience must not merely be informed but formed by doctrine it cannot choose to reject that doctrine without grave sin – formed in, with and through truth, it can choose error only by denying truth. What Christ’s Church mandates is that, as a Catholic, you cannot choose to do other than to form your conscience strictly according to Her teaching and then to use that conscience to judge all acts based on that certain truth. Christ did not give Her the power of binding and loosing to have you play fast and loose with His truth.

The Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: “It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at – in fact one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being.” [meaning: the original memory of the good]. “The guilt lies much deeper – not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” The Priest, Autumn, 1993].

The morass of confusion and error, the deafness to the internal prompting of truth, can only be cleared by listening to, learning and loving truth above all else as in Veritatis Splendor #64, Pope John Paul II teaches;……“freedom of conscience” is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth**…because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), **especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”**Christ’s Church mandates that since the Encyclicals *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae teach definitively against the intrinsic evil of contraception to the whole Church by Her Shepherd and Teacher with his apostolic authority, the doctrine is infallible.

You have been consistently quite unable to produce any doctrine to justify any Catholic denying Christ in His Church’s rock solid doctrine against contraception. The Church does not leave the world in confusion on faith or morals with “opinions”, but declares Christ’s truths with clarity.

 

[tjm190]

You put the cart before the horse. Since the Catholic conscience must not merely be informed but formed by doctrine it cannot choose to reject that doctrine without grave sin – formed in, with and through truth, it can choose error only by denying truth.

“Choose to reject”? We just decide what is right and wrong arbitrarily, rather than by what appears to be true? Is that how your mind operates, because mine certainly does not.

Furthermore, if “It is never wrong to follow convictions that one has arrived at” then those who believe contraception is moral can do so without (additional) sin- I suppose the sin then is simply disagreeing with the Church on the matter?

 

[Abu]

tjm190
“It is never wrong to follow convictions that one has arrived at”

How convenient to ignore the Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger – “The guilt lies much deeper –not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” The Priest, Autumn, 1993].

It is not merely astonishing it is fatal to be so lax, and the Supreme Vicar of Christ pulls no punches.

Fidelity to Christ through His Church, not opinions, prejudices or “appearances”, is what He has commanded.

Congratulations to Suspicious Mind and to Lypher, among others, for their testimony to truth.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
On any particular day they abstain they destroy both the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act; non-abortive contraception used on the same day maintains the unitive aspect and a small percentage of the procreative aspect. If on that particular day the couple would, in love, like to perform the conjugal act contraception is better than NFP as NFP would destroy both aspects.

What rot. Rightly used, NBR uses God-given reason and God-given faith. You set yourself up as dissenter on a Catholic Answers Forum, against Christ’s Magisterium, where all should be able to find the explanation and defence of truth. So here is the way, the truth and the life from Christ’s Supreme Vicar:
Pope Paul in HV11, in a little studied section of the encyclical *Humanae Vitae *when commenting on abstinence among married couples wrote: “The discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence; husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility.”

You persist in substituting a mere opinion of yours for the correct formation and prudent judgement of conscience.
BTW, under Moral Conscience, in the CCC is “IV. Erroneous Judgment”, and # 1792 clarifies the “sources of errors in moral conduct” to include “assertion of a mistaken notion of the autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s teaching authority…” Living in an Alice in Wonderland world is not facing reality. It’s time to rethink.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

Re your quote from my post:

“Quote:
TruthloverOn any particular day they abstain they destroy both the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act; non-abortive contraception used on the same day maintains the unitive aspect and a small percentage of the procreative aspect. If on that particular day the couple would, in love, like to perform the conjugal act contraception is better than NFP as NFP would destroy both aspects.”

Your argument against this is: “What rot.” I am afraid you will only convince fundamentalists with that viewpoint.

You also selectively quote the CCC:

You persist in substituting a mere opinion of yours for the correct formation and prudent judgement of conscience.
BTW, under Moral Conscience, in the CCC is “IV. Erroneous Judgment”, and # 1792 clarifies the “sources of errors in moral conduct” to include “assertion of a mistaken notion of the autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s teaching authority…” Living in an Alice in Wonderland world is not facing reality. It’s time to rethink.

The CCC also says:

“1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

Could you inform us why the CCC is wrong here? As you constantly proclaim.

 

[sinnerdexter]

What’s wrong with condoms? I don’t see anything wrong with it… If the person wants to use it and if it fits properly and is not defective then it should serve the purpose. Using condoms is all up to the individual’s preference. some men favor other types of family planning like withdrawal, or vasectomies if they prefer to go under the knife, or have the woman take birth control pills. bottomline … condoms are safe to use… just check for damages before applying, do not use if defective, and , of course you should know how to put it on. If it fits… it ships…

 

[tjm190]

How convenient to ignore the Pope as Cardinal Ratzinger – “The guilt lies much deeper –not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” The Priest, Autumn, 1993].

It is not merely astonishing it is fatal to be so lax, and the Supreme Vicar of Christ pulls no punches.

Fidelity to Christ through His Church, not opinions, prejudices or “appearances”, is what He has commanded.

Congratulations to Suspicious Mind and to Lypher, among others, for their testimony to truth.

You failed to read my entire post, as usual. But again- if two Catholics believe contraception is not a sin, then it seems that they can practice contraception without sinning if we are to believe then Cardinal Ratzinger. However, it seems that they are in a perpetual state of sin simply for disagreeing with the Church.
i.e. I, being an unmarried person, am not presently sexually active and therefore don’t use birth control- but since I have ‘made myself deaf’ to what the Church believes to be true, I am sinning. However, there would be no additional sin in my using contraception (were I to become married.)

 

[davidv]

You failed to read my entire post, as usual. But again- if two Catholics believe contraception is not a sin, then it seems that they can practice contraception without sinning if we are to believe then Cardinal Ratzinger. However, it seems that they are in a perpetual state of sin simply for disagreeing with the Church.
i.e. I, being an unmarried person, am not presently sexually active and therefore don’t use birth control- but since I have ‘made myself deaf’ to what the Church believes to be true, I am sinning. However, there would be no additional sin in my using contraception (were I to become married.)

A sin is sin, whether one believes it is or not. Sins are offenses against God. Your belief on the matter does not change the fact of sin. However, depending on the reason for the disbelief, it may be the cause of diminished culpability.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

The CCC complete section on formation of conscience reads as follows:

II. The Formation of Conscience

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. the education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. the education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

In light of the above it is clear from your quote below that you do not understand how a conscience should be formed:

Since the Catholic conscience must not merely be informed but formed by doctrine

Please read CCC 1785, in particular, carefully.

 

[Abu]

Tjm190
it seems that they [Catholics] are in a perpetual state of sin simply for disagreeing with the Church.

Here, Cardinal Ratzinger is also felt to be wrong! (See posts #186, 188). That is precisely the dissenting state of anarchy and chaos which unfaithful, modernist, dissenting theologians have produced – half-educated and unfaithful Catholics who haven’t a clue as to what Christ teaches nor their obligation to assent to all dogma and doctrine defined by His Church. (See post # 164). Nor can they ever offer any justification for dissent, whether on contraception or any other doctrine! Readers can study the CCC #88 updated 1987, and #891-2.

Truthlover
CCC #1782: Could you inform us why the CCC is wrong here? As you constantly proclaim.

The usual tactic of trying to pit one answer against another, as though the CCC is wrong, while trying to establish personal opinion as the rule! The fidelity to truth and scholarship of those who have been quoted are treated with contempt. This is what they don’t want you to know:
In the Section *Moral Life And The Magisterium of the Church *in Article 3 The Church, Mother And Teacher, in Chapter Three Life In Christ, the **CCC #2039 **teaches “…the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

CCC1782 insists that man “must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.” This refutes force to change beliefs as sought by some regimes, religions and cults. *CCC #1792 *identifies specifically “the errors of judgment in moral conduct”, including “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching.”

The dissenters would have you believe that the CCC contradicts itself and therefore Christ’s Church is in error. There is no possible answer to Christ’s clear teaching on the formation of conscience for the Catholic, and on the absolute necessity of not setting one’s self in opposition not only to the moral law, but to the Magisterium when defining Her teaching, through a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience.

Fr Stanley L Jaki wisely remarked that there could be no conflict because the individual conscience did not enjoy the divine guidance promised to the pope. (Keys of the Kingdom, 1986, p 162).

Those Catholics “simply disagreeing with the Church” are dissenters and, as such: cannot escape the conclusion that their contrary opinion must be mistaken, as they would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. They then have to see where they have been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If they feel that they are not mistaken, then they must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally their faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse. (From Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985). [Msgr Burke is a priest of the prelature of Opus Dei].

Collapse, it certainly has.

 

[BostonSteamer]

Condemns prevent God from fullfilling his plan: STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

You quote CCC1782 below and then put in your erroneous interpretation. Why? 1782 is clear and does not need you to change its meaning. Search your heart.

“CCC1782 insists that man “must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience.” This refutes force to change beliefs as sought by some regimes, religions and cults.”

 

[tjm190]

Here, Cardinal Ratzinger is also felt to be wrong! (See posts #186, 188). That is precisely the dissenting state of anarchy and chaos which unfaithful, modernist, dissenting theologians have produced – half-educated and unfaithful Catholics who haven’t a clue as to what Christ teaches nor their obligation to assent to all dogma and doctrine defined by His Church. (See post # 164). Nor can they ever offer any justification for dissent, whether on contraception or any other doctrine! Readers can study the CCC #88 updated 1987, and #891-2.

You really do a wonderful job of saying whatever you want to regardless of what was asked.

Again- “It is never wrong to follow convictions that one has arrived at” seems to mean that if you have determined that a certain act is moral, you can go through with that act without sinning.

But- "The guilt lies much deeper –not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.” Seems to mean that, while going through with the act is not sinful, simply disagreeing with the Church is.

If I am misinterpreting what our Pope said, please explain what you think he meant

 

[Abu]

Facing Reality: The truth shall set you free
Having been unable to justify the lie that is dissent, in this case in promoting and practising contraception, the selfist, self-serving feeling that Christ’s Church is wrong is paraded ad nauseam.

1. Since Christ’s Church never forces conscience, CCC #1782 warns against those religions, cults and regimes that do:
   See CCC#1782 under Religious Freedom of Conscience
   defendingthebride.com/mo/freedomconsc.html
   “Catholic Church Supports Religious Freedom.
   Contrary to popular myth the Catholic Church supports religious freedom. She proposes what she believes is true, but does not desire to force others to believe against their will. She proposes not imposes. Catholicism even teaches that we are all obliged to follow our conscience. See note 1.
   “Note:

1. Catholics believe that Truth can be known, and that it can be known with certainty. We all have the obligation to discover what is True.”

1. CCC #1792 identifies specifically “the errors of judgment in moral conduct”, including “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching.”
2. CCC #2039 teaches “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

Pope Paul VI teaches that what the moral law forbids is….‘every action’ which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible (Humanae vitae, n. 14).

The Catholic who knows what the Church teaches infallibly against contraception but has freely chosen to reject that teaching, has no excuse to “arrive at any ‘conviction’ ” other than the truth taught – whereas the Catholic who has been malformed, misinformed or disinformed, might. So no Catholic here has any excuse, now. Those choosing to dissent do so in full knowledge however they may squirm.

Who is a Catholic?
Canon 205: Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
Canon 750 §2. “Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”[vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM]](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM])
[This requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (Pope John Paul II, *Ad Tuendam Fidem), 1998.]

The lengths to which some will go to declare “I will not serve” is not restricted to contraception but covers every whim and feeling. So Canon 229 is salutary:
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.

So where does the whim come from that a Catholic may be so opinionated as to not only reject definitive doctrine but hold a “couldn’t care less” attitude to live according to that doctrine, conceal it and wallow in refusing to exercise the Catholic’s apostolate? From the half-educated, unfaithful and dissenting theologians who did just that.

BTW, God killed Onan for his contraceptive act (Gen. 38: 9-10) but the self-serving only wallow in their own opinions