Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Blue_Horizon]

I made a remark about a trap we can fall into - just as you seem to referencing traps in your last sentence.

Yes I did, but you must admit I was specifying a form of “ignorance” … the only defect that the CCC identifies as a principled basis for explaining acceptable conscientious dissention.

You attempted to extrapolate/define another principle other than ignorance - namely general human difficulty in practise of accessing the voice of conscience (right or wrong) itself.

I believe the CCC, if it says anything on your personal view, implies the opposite. That is, the voice of personal conscience often speaks clearly (though often erroneously) on grave matters.

I do not say you are wrong to identify this defect.
The difficulty is
(a) you generalise from your own personality to all personalities by making a principle of it
(b) if the CCC actually implies that the voice of conscience (right or wrong) speaks relatively clearly to most people by reason of natural law engraved in their hearts then your principle necessarily becomes a pejorative one and implies culpability unless demonstrated otherwise! I know you mean to say this defect is neutral…but given the Church’s fairly clear principled view is that most people can well access their conscience…your view must then be seen as implying culpability for the majority of dissenters because you seem to say many in fact do not do this in practise.

 

[Vico]

… there will be a mix of the sincere dissenters, the casual dissenters, the cafeteria club, the reluctant actors, and so on…

That seems to cover both culpable and inculpable per the Catechism, condensed:

Source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1. deliberately acting against the certain judgment of conscience.
2. culpable ignorance, e.g., “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”
3. inculpable ignorance: Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity.

 

[Rau]

That seems to cover both culpable and inculpable per the Catechism, condensed:

Source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1. deliberately acting against the certain judgment of conscience.
2. culpable ignorance, e.g., “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”
3. inculpable ignorance: Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity.

One can discover the church teaches something is intrinsically evil. Yet one’s conscience seems to conclude otherwise. In this situation, is it possible to “do” the act without culpability? See my 2nd para in post #159.

 

[Vico]

One can discover the church teaches something is intrinsically evil. Yet one’s conscience seems to conclude otherwise. In this situation, is it possible to “do” the act without culpability? See my 2nd para in post #159.

Catechism 1792 has an answer that there are such things as: “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching,”

Not that the notion of autonomy of conscience is mistaken.