Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Rau]

Rau said: [The “unnaturalness” in question is the corruption of the sexual act, and the use of our sexual faculties, *to exclude what is an essential element of it

• it’s ordering toward procreation. It is inherently “unnatural” to do that given the very nature of our bodies and their sexual function.]

Let me now address this part of your reply. You use words like “corruption” and “unnatural” without qualification as if it is obvious to everyone that what is essentially your opinion is a fact. These words have indefinite meanings and meanings which change over time, context and by virtue of who is using them. My opinion is that NFP is more unnatural than a condom. Yours apparently is the opposite. The “naturalness” of something is a matter of opinion and therefor not something we can invoke to prove contraception is moral or immoral.

The word “unnatural” is irrelevant to the argument, which I tried to convey by placing it in quotes. I didn’t express an opinion, only the observation that condoms change the sexual act - by removing what was an element of it. HV addresses this point - and you may view its reasoning as to why this is wrong an opinion if you wish. But the objective distinction between periodically abstaining from intercourse, and changing the sexual act, is not opinion - it’s observable fact.

BTW - how do you “prove” immorality of something?

 

[mvercimak]

The church has no teaching capacity in matters of science. The present pope has spoken about global warming too - his thoughts have merit but, as to whether the earth is warming, his opinion is no better than yours.

Today 10:44 am.
You are partially correct. The pope’s opinion on global warming is no better than mine. On the other hand. If he decides to declare in a encyclical that contributing to climate change ignores our God given charge care for the earth and as such is a sin and the bishops are all on board then indeed there will no longer be equivalence in our opinions. The fact that the church should not teach in matters of science is something hopefully they have learned in retrospect by looking at their regrettable misadventures such as the Galileo affair. At that time, however, they certainly did believe they knew better than Galileo and wrought down all the sanctions at their disposal to quell this ‘heresy’. It is a historical fact that the church has on a number of issues reversed itself on teachings which were magisterial. Thank the Holy Spirit that He moved the church fathers to do so as there were clearly injustices and great harms that resulted from misguided pronouncements of the magisterium.

Similarly, in the matter of control of the spacing and number of children, the magisterial party line is markedly out of touch with the plight of the flock they are shepherding as evidenced by the droves of Catholics abandoning their faith. Good God fearing reverent Catholic young couples have real life serious reasons for delaying and limiting the size of their families. NFP is simply not the answer. With a failure rate of approximately 25% that involves sophisticated understanding of fertility and ovulation it is no wonder that these parents look to alternative methods. It is time for the church and the pope to wake up and look beyond their insulated tax exempt churches and the celibate comfortable secure living they enjoy from the charitable contributions of the faithful and offer some realistic solutions to the cultural problems we are facing out here in the real world.

 

[Rau]

…Similarly, in the matter of control of the spacing and number of children, the magisterial party line is markedly out of touch with the plight of the flock they are shepherding as evidenced by the droves of Catholics abandoning their faith. Good God fearing reverent Catholic young couples have real life serious reasons for delaying and limiting the size of their families. NFP is simply not the answer. With a failure rate of approximately 25% that involves sophisticated understanding of fertility and ovulation it is no wonder that these parents look to alternative methods.

Catholics may abandon the Church for various reasons, and you suggest that a failure to be in “touch with the plight of the flock” would be one. That accusation seems to suggest, in line with another of your comments, that moral truths are proclaimed “for a time”, and if they become inconvenient, they should be changed to be better received by the flock. So…if the Jails are too full or too financially burdensome - capital punishment needs to be allowable for a wider set of crimes! If Men want to have Sex with men - redefine marriage! If babies are too burdensome for young subtle mothers - declare abortion aok! But this is not how it works because the church does not understand its authority as establishing the moral law, but discerning what is revealed by God. That understanding can develop - become more complete - but not reverse.

I won’t debate effectiveness of NFP with you, but here at least is a reference on the subject which shows rather better results:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

 

[mvercimak]

I cannot see how you got from the observation that the church leaders are not in touch with their lay members to moral truths being temporary. Your analogies comparing contraception to capital punishment, homosexuality and abortion are absurd. This is another logical fallacy—the straw man fallacy. To clarify a point I do not think that moral truths are arbitrary. My point is simply that the jury is still out on the issue of contraception. Catholic Church leaders do their best * to apply moral truths to reality but they are only human and tend to see the world from their background, experience and theological training. If the pope had a wife and 11 children and the bishop had to deal with a spouse with failing kidneys who nearly died from preeclampsia giving birth to their second of 6 children with Down’s Syndrome after he lost their job and had to sell their home to pay for the medical bills I believe they could understand the legitimate concerns people have for controlling the size of their families. It’s easy to say just use NFP or abstain from where they sit. The moral truth is still there: marriage is for procreation and married couples should be open to life. It’s when the church tries from its skewed perspective to give direction on the practical incorporation of this moral principal into the reality of life that it runs into difficulty.*

 

[Rau]

…To clarify a point I do not think that moral truths are arbitrary. My point is simply that the jury is still out on the issue of contraception. Catholic Church leaders do their best * to apply moral truths to reality but they are only human and tend to see the world from their background, experience and theological training. If the pope had a wife and 11 children and the bishop had to deal with a spouse with failing kidneys who nearly died from preeclampsia giving birth to their second of 6 children with Down’s Syndrome after he lost their job and had to sell their home to pay for the medical bills I believe they could understand the legitimate concerns people have for controlling the size of their families. It’s easy to say just use NFP or abstain from where they sit. The moral truth is still there: marriage is for procreation and married couples should be open to life. It’s when the church tries from its skewed perspective to give direction on the practical incorporation of this moral principal into the reality of life that it runs into difficulty.*

Moral truth’s about contraception don’t change because one has too many children. Moral truths about abortion don’t change because the mother is at medical risk. If you disagree with these statements, then you repudiate the notion of intrinsic evil - something utterly fundamental to Catholic moral theology. The negative precepts are absolute. Reference: Veritatis Splendor.

I understand you believe the church is in error, and that contraception is a good. You also say that married couples should be open to life - I guess you mean “some of the time”.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I keep seeing the argument that contraception is a sin because the Church says so. This is circular reasoning. One reply even completed the circle by asserting ‘the church said so because contraception is a sin.’ These arguments are not only logical fallacies but prevent any progress in the discussion. …

Hi mvercimak!

I wrote the reply you that say “completed the circle”. Look at the original question on the thread title. What I wrote invited a different question, closer to the question you asked to progress the discussion.

Here’s one point of logic that people often overlook:
Catholicism considers contraception a sin because contraception is a sin.

It’s really that simple. If you want to ask why contraception is a sin, that is a different question.

Certainly faithful Catholics who don’t understand *why *contraception is wrong can follow the Church teachings on the matter simply because they are the Church teachings. In the spiritual life, humble obedience is generally preferable to prideful disobedience. Some may never really understand why, and understanding isn’t needed for obedience. I see your profile says you are a cradle Catholic. Let’s look at some other things that our Catholic faith teaches.

The Bible in numerous places regards children as a blessing. The Church teaches that children are blessings. One might ask, “Does the Church only teach that children are blessing because the Bible says they are–or does the Bible just say they are because the Church teaches it?” That’s a circular question, but the answer isn’t circular. The answer is–neither. Both the Bible and the Church teach that children are blessings because children are blessings from God. That notion that children are blessings flows from God.

Similarly, the Church teachings about contraception flow from God. God made humans in His image and likeness. He loves us. He wants a relationship with us and He calls us to love others as He loves us. This teaching is less about what we can’t or shouldn’t do and far more about what we can and should do. This is about love.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth…”

 

[mvercimak]

Moral truth’s about contraception don’t change because one has too many children. Moral truths about abortion don’t change because the mother is at medical risk.

It seems that you keep trying to bring abortion into this discussion. Abortion and contraception are two very different topics. I think you would find that we have much more common ground on the topic of abortion. That, however, is a for another thread. Could we please stick to the topic at hand.

Moral truth’s about contraception don’t change because one has too many children…… If you disagree with these statements, then you repudiate the notion of intrinsic evil - something utterly fundamental to Catholic moral theology.

This is a very merciless thing to say. If this is truly how you believe then I think you have missed the major point of the Gospels of Christ. Moral precepts do not exist in a vacuum. They are interwoven with other truths, circumstances where they are applied, the effects and many other factors and they do not trump the need to regard our neighbor with compassion, love and understanding.

The Church does not forbid couples who have the proper motivation and disposition to time the birth of their children and to limit their family size. It simply says that the only two options for them to do so are abstinence and Natural Family Planning. We both agree on this point I think. I simply believe that the difference between some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of their children and limiting their family size amounts to semantics and artificial subjective constructs such a perceived ‘naturalness’ and the false supposition that people who use a method other than abstinence and NFP are not open to the possibility of life. Even a woman who has a tubal ligation may be open to the possibility of life. All these procedures have a known failure rate. If the woman who has had this procedure becomes pregnant and accepts the resulting pregnancy as God’s gift of a human life, bears the child, loves and nurtures him/her then it may be said without equivocation that she was indeed open to the possibility of life. If the family of this woman have all the children they can raise given their circumstances then they have also accepted the moral precept that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Application of the moral precept that the purpose of marriage is procreation does not mean that you should keep having baby after baby far beyond the number you can nurture and care for or till birthing complications kill you.

 

[Rau]

It seems that you keep trying to bring abortion into this discussion. Abortion and contraception are two very different topics. I think you would find that we have much more common ground on the topic of abortion. That, however, is a for another thread. Could we please stick to the topic at hand.

There is no change of topic involved. I make the point that in Catholic Moral theology, we accept that some acts are “intrinsically evil” - that is, there are some acts which are always wrong to choose. I mention abortion - an intended killing of an innocent - as I expect you agree that it is always wrong - it’s a moral truth that doesn’t change. *Good intentions or particular circumstances do not give rise to occasions when it becomes an acceptable act. * Calumny, fornication, adultery, contraception - are also taught as “intrinsically evil”, though I’ve already acknowledged that in connection with contraception, you believe contracepted sexual (marital) intercourse is a moral act.

If this is truly how you believe then I think you have missed the major point of the Gospels of Christ. Moral precepts do not exist in a vacuum. They are interwoven with other truths, circumstances where they are applied, the effects and many other factors and they do not trump the need to regard our neighbor with compassion, love and understanding.

You need to direct your criticism then at the Church, for she holds that the negative precepts of the law (Thou shall’t not…) are in fact absolutes, while the positive precepts (Love they neighbour…) are not. From Veritatis Splendor:

*“The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).” *

The Church does not forbid couples who have the proper motivation and disposition to time the birth of their children and to limit their family size. It simply says that the only two options for them to do so are abstinence and Natural Family Planning. We both agree on this point I think. I simply believe that the difference between some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of their children and limiting their family size amounts to semantics and artificial subjective constructs …

The Church identifies that abstaining at times from intercourse is quite distinct from modifying the natural course of sexual intercourse to remove its procreative characteristic - and gives its basis for concluding that such action is immoral (see for example: Humanae Vitae para 10 - 18). I find your assertion that acts such as: - donning a condom prior to intercourse, or mutual masturbation, or taking a pill to prevent ovulation prior to intercourse - differ from abstinence by merely “semantics and artificial subjective constructs” to be patently absurd. They are demonstrably and meaningfully different. It is enough for you to assert you disagree that these acts are immoral. I accept that you do.

Even a woman who has a tubal ligation may be open to the possibility of life. All these procedures have a known failure rate. If the woman who has had this procedure becomes pregnant and accepts the resulting pregnancy as God’s gift of a human life, bears the child, loves and nurtures him/her then it may be said without equivocation that she was indeed open to the possibility of life.

Tubal ligation is a form of sterilisation and if its purpose is to render future anticipation sexual intercourse sterile, then it is clearly contraceptive. That the person concerned - should they actually become pregnant - then chooses to not abort the child, they have rejected the sin of abortion, and that is good. This does not change the nature of the act of sterilisation, which is the same kind of act whether enacted prior to the birth of any children, or at some later time. This does not mean that the degree of evil is the same in both instances. But the fact of existing children (a circumstance) does not cause the contraceptive act to no longer be wrong.

If the family of this woman have all the children they can raise given their circumstances then they have also accepted the moral precept that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Application of the moral precept that the purpose of marriage is procreation does not mean that you should keep having baby after baby far beyond the number you can nurture and care for or till birthing complications kill you.

There is no suggestion, explicit or implicit, that one should “keep having baby after baby…”. So this is a strawman.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Catholics may abandon the Church for various reasons, and you suggest that a failure to be in “touch with the plight of the flock” would be one. That accusation seems to suggest, in line with another of your comments, that moral truths are proclaimed “for a time”, and if they become inconvenient, they should be changed to be better received by the flock. So…if the Jails are too full or too financially burdensome - capital punishment needs to be allowable for a wider set of crimes! If Men want to have Sex with men - redefine marriage! If babies are too burdensome for young subtle mothers - declare abortion aok! But this is not how it works because the church does not understand its authority as establishing the moral law, but discerning what is revealed by God. That understanding can develop - become more complete - but not reverse.

I won’t debate effectiveness of NFP with you, but here at least is a reference on the subject which shows rather better results:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

I think there is some wiggle room here for changes that do not mean change of moral principles…just as is happening with irregular marriages.

I think there is wiggle room wrt current discipline re what on the ground constitutes actual contraceptive intent. While circumstances cannot change the grave matter of a contraceptive act…there could be rare “circumstances” that can give us pause to prudentially reconsider:
(a) whether the act is rightly judged contraceptive matter in the first place (many hold contracepted sex with the pregnant is an act of contraception which I would disagree with)
(b) whether chosen contraceptive matter always implies direct intention (eg killing is against the Commandment but in certain conditions one may justifiably kill. The Congo Nuns may be an example of a legitimate indirect contraceptive decision)

It does seem that Humane Vitae’s complete and undifferentiated denial of contracepted sex was more about postponing damaging ongoing theological discussion with a complete disciplinary bann rather than intrinsic theological denial of exceptions.

I do not think many left in droves over this matter … though many loyal Catholics did and still do believe the Church is somewhat out of touch withe the absolute bann approach. They are still with us and practised ABC regardless as a matter of conscience. I do not believe they are banned from Communion for doing so…unlike remarriage.

 

[Rau]

Interesting theories about the margins Blue, but my interlocutor is struggling with the central principle rather than with the margins.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interesting theories about the margins Blue, but my interlocutor is struggling with the principal rather than at the margins.

You may be right but I was thinking this may be one of those “I heard what he said but understand what he meant” cases.

 

[Rosebud77]

In reviewing this thread since my last reply I keep seeing the argument that contraception is a sin because the Church says so. This is circular reasoning. One reply even completed the circle by asserting ‘the church said so because contraception is a sin.’ These arguments are not only logical fallacies but prevent any progress in the discussion. Humanae Vitae addressed this issue in 1968. This was, however, an encyclical letter not an ex cathedra declaration. Although authoritative and binding on the faithful it could still be modified, expanded further even abrogated by a present or future pontiff.

The argument that contraceptives interfere with a “natural process” seem to be what people keep coming back to. Checking your daily temp, examining the viscosity of your vaginal discharge etc. for the specific purpose of dramatically decreasing the chances that intercourse will result in pregnancy certainly is not ‘natural’. It is confusing and confounding the natural process-sexual relations-that has as its natural end conception. It is at least as unnatural a using a mechanical barrier to decrease the chances of pregnancy.

Thank you for this and your other posts on this.

 

[Rosebud77]

Interesting theories about the margins Blue, but my interlocutor is struggling with the central principle rather than with the margins.

Ah but he is not struggling.

 

[Rosebud77]

I cannot see how you got from the observation that the church leaders are not in touch with their lay members to moral truths being temporary. Your analogies comparing contraception to capital punishment, homosexuality and abortion are absurd. This is another logical fallacy—the straw man fallacy. To clarify a point I do not think that moral truths are arbitrary. My point is simply that the jury is still out on the issue of contraception. Catholic Church leaders do their best * to apply moral truths to reality but they are only human and tend to see the world from their background, experience and theological training. If the pope had a wife and 11 children and the bishop had to deal with a spouse with failing kidneys who nearly died from preeclampsia giving birth to their second of 6 children with Down’s Syndrome after he lost their job and had to sell their home to pay for the medical bills I believe they could understand the legitimate concerns people have for controlling the size of their families. It’s easy to say just use NFP or abstain from where they sit. The moral truth is still there: marriage is for procreation and married couples should be open to life. It’s when the church tries from its skewed perspective to give direction on the practical incorporation of this moral principal into the reality of life that it runs into difficulty.*

Again, thank you. Wise words

 

[Rau]

Ah but he is not struggling.

If by that you mean he simply rejects it flatly, I’d have to agree. I’d also suggest he is struggling mightily to express a cogent argument to support his assertion that abstinence and contraception are just the same.

 

[Rau]

Again, thank you. Wise words

I think the proper expression is “strawman”. That’s where you pretend your debating partner said something and then criticize that, rather than addressing what was said.

 

[Mummsie]

I’ve found this whole discussion very interesting. Doesn’t this whole thing come down to “I want to have intercourse whenever I want it and I don’t want to worry about creating a baby. This is all about me and my wants. God has nothing to do with it.” This is basically America today. ME, ME, ME!!! Doesn’t anyone think about sacrificing their wants for others?

God Bless You.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

They are still with us and practised ABC regardless as a matter of conscience. I do not believe they are banned from Communion for doing so…unlike remarriage.

Depends. Divorced and remarried cannot take Communion because they are living together in what is considered an adulterous relationship. There is an element of scandal involved but ultimately that isn’t so important. The real reason is that living with someone who is not one’s husband is grave matter. Since contraception is grave matter, then if a couple is using contraception with full knowledge and free will, they are in a state of mortal sin and hence commit further mortal sin by taking Communion.

 

[Dorothy]

I’ve found this whole discussion very interesting. Doesn’t this whole thing come down to “I want to have intercourse whenever I want it and I don’t want to worry about creating a baby. This is all about me and my wants. God has nothing to do with it.” This is basically America today. ME, ME, ME!!! Doesn’t anyone think about sacrificing their wants for others?

God Bless You.

You are so right! God bless you too.

 

[Vico]

I’ve found this whole discussion very interesting. Doesn’t this whole thing come down to “I want to have intercourse whenever I want it and I don’t want to worry about creating a baby. This is all about me and my wants. God has nothing to do with it.” This is basically America today. ME, ME, ME!!! Doesn’t anyone think about sacrificing their wants for others?

God Bless You.

As with all sin, explained in the Catechism:

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.