Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I believe you have conflated two very different rules regarding reception of Communion. Canons 916 and 917 from memory.
One involves self judgement as to culpability…the other is the judgement made by the priest.
A priest is under no general obligation to withhold Communion from someone he knows to be using contraceptives.
He is obliged to withhold Communion from those he knows to be remarried and are not living as brother and sister.

The latter is now no longer absolute because of AL. Those in a sexual relationship and who are in an accompaniment process with the priest may be allowed to receive.

 

[dcs]

The latter is now no longer absolute because of AL. Those in a sexual relationship and who are in an accompaniment process with the priest may be allowed to receive.

No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to give Holy Communion publicly to public sinners (which includes those who are cohabitating, particularly those who attempt marriage after civil divorce).

 

[Rau]

No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to give Holy Communion publicly to public sinners (which includes those who are cohabitating, particularly those who attempt marriage after civil divorce).

He didn’t say publically. And the (objective) sin may not be public.

 

[Rau]

…A priest is under no general obligation to withhold Communion from someone he knows to be using contraceptives.
He is obliged to withhold Communion from those he knows to be remarried and are not living as brother and sister.

The latter is now no longer absolute because of AL. Those in a sexual relationship and who are in an accompaniment process with the priest may be allowed to receive.

Canon 915 should cause the priest to exclude all those obstinately participating in grave sin. So the priest would need to know that the taking of the contraceptives was knowingly done to remove the procreative nature of the sexual act. Generally, a priest is unlikely to know these facts.

AL does not create any “muddiness” around the sinfulness of contraception the way it has around divorced and remarried.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No one, not even the Pope, has the authority to give Holy Communion publicly to public sinners (which includes those who are cohabitating, particularly those who attempt marriage after civil divorce).

Well given that the Pope has allowed a possible channel for exactly this in some few cases it appears you actually have no basis for your interpretation above of Church Teaching.

Just get it out there and call Pope Francis a heretic if you cannot accept that he has allowed exactly this possibility.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Canon 915 should cause the priest to exclude all those obstinately participating in grave sin. So the priest would need to know that the taking of the contraceptives was knowingly done to remove the procreative nature of the sexual act. Generally, a priest is unlikely to know these facts.

Yes this is pretty much my point, the issues re AL cannot be compared to contracepting Catholic couples. These are significantly different cases.

Re AL I dont know what you mean by “muddying the waters”.
Did changing the fish on friday rules muddy the waters re the normative requirement for all Catholics to practice regular acts of penance?

I dont think so.

 

[Rau]

…Re AL I dont know what you mean by “muddying the waters”.
Did changing the fish on friday rules muddy the waters re the normative requirement for all Catholics to practice regular acts of penance?

I dont think so.

It did not, due to clarity of expression. All competent persons understood what was being said when the discipline re: meat changed. Noone said “oh, no, nothing really has changed, it just means…”

 

[Rau]

Yes this is pretty much my point, the issues re AL cannot be compared to contracepting Catholic couples. These are significantly different cases.

They may differ in the objective nature of the circumstances as known to the priest. Whether contraception or adultery is the grave sin in question would not alter the situation for the priest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

They may differ in the objective nature of the circumstances as known to the priest. Whether contraception or adultery is the grave sin in question would not alter the situation for the priest.

I tend to disagree.
The issue here is not ongoing adultery (which may or may not involve a remarriage) but being in an objectively establishable remarried state (regardless of sexual activity which is normatively presumed).

If a priest knows an approaching couple to be irregularly remarried, under the old rules, he has an obligation not to regularly Commune them (though he may speak to them afterwards rather than cause a scene) regardless of whether they are anonymous or not. They are not presumed “innocent”.

This is not the case with contracepting couples.
The presumption is in their “innocence”, their “ojective state” is impossible to determine publicly. So if they approach there is no obligation for him to decline Communion…even if he personally knows they are regularly contracepting.

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

I do know what that means, thank you BUt I do not believe that that applies here It is a highly relevant point.

These comparisons are valid.

 

[Rosebud77]

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.

In ways that matter they are;and I limit contraception to condoms.

 

[AdamP88]

In ways that matter they are;and I limit contraception to condoms.

Are you serious?

They are totally different by their nature. I don’t understand how you can even argue that abstinence is the same as using a condom.

 

[Rau]

I do know what that means, thank you BUt I do not believe that that applies here It is a highly relevant point.

These comparisons are valid.

Rather than hitch your wagon to another poster, it might be desirable for you to articulate your own arguments.

 

[Rau]

Are you serious?

They are totally different by their nature. I don’t understand how you can even argue that abstinence is the same as using a condom.

The poster finds contraception (of a form not risking abortion) acceptable, and consequently asserting an equivalence with NFP (periodic abstinence) is one way to persuade oneself that one’s position “must be just”. To move toward revising one’s position to be more in line with the Church’s teaching may well be difficult after many years of living (and acting in accord) with the reverse position.

 

[Rau]

…contracepting couples… if they approach there is no obligation for him to decline Communion…even if he personally knows they are regularly contracepting.

Can. 915 Those who … * and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.*

I’ve not read this to require a public nature of the sin, that is to entail any risk of scandal, rather that the matter need only be manifest to the Priest. I’ve not understood that the matter needs to be “manifest” to the congregation. [Scandal can in fact arise when there is in fact no sin at all, rather just an objective appearance.]

Thus, had the couple recently informed the priest that “look here, we do contracept, we don’t want children yet, and we don’t care much what the Church teaches on this point”. I’ve always understood the Priest would then be entitled to say to the couple - “under these circumstances, you do understand that I cannot admit you to communion?”

Do you believe the Canon means otherwise?

 

[AdamP88]

The poster finds contraception (of a form not risking abortion) acceptable, and consequently asserting an equivalence with NFP (periodic abstinence) is one way to persuade oneself that one’s position “must be just”. To move toward revising one’s position to be more in line with the Church’s teaching may well be difficult after many years of living (and acting in accord) with the reverse position.

Well Rosebud still hasn’t made any other argument than asserting her position. I’m waiting to be convinced of how this moral equivalence works.

Stating that condoms are the same as NFP is an insult to all the couples who faithfully follow Church Teaching and actually use NFP.

 

[Rau]

Well Rosebud still hasn’t made any other argument than asserting her position. I’m waiting to be convinced of how this moral equivalence works.

Stating that condoms are the same as NFP is an insult to all the couples who faithfully follow Church Teaching and actually use NFP.

I wouldn’t suggest any insult is intended.

But to say they are the “same” is patent nonsense. And to say that they are the same “in ways that matter” is to obstinately insist that all that is at issue is the “avoiding of pregnancy” (not in itself evil), and to deny that the means of avoidance has any relevance. The Church has been crystal clear that the issue is in fact the means!

 

[Rosebud77]

Rather than hitch your wagon to another poster, it might be desirable for you to articulate your own arguments.

My dear young person. I am heading for 80, in increasingly frail health and with very limited energy or internet access.

We work together in this life and to add my posts, considering I have already blocked one poster for rude aggression, ( Irish he is) is to encourage likemindedness

OK?
OK!

 

[AdamP88]

My dear young person. I am heading for 80, in increasingly frail health and with very limited energy or internet access.

We work together in this life and to add my posts,** considering I have already blocked one poster for rude aggression**, ( Irish he is) is to encourage likemindedness

OK?
OK!

I presume you mean me? Well that’s ok with me. Though I don’t understand why you come onto a discussion forum and post on contentious issues if you’re not prepared to defend your positions and simply block anyone who offers a robust argument against your assertions.

 

[Rosebud77]

The poster finds contraception (of a form not risking abortion) acceptable, and consequently asserting an equivalence with NFP (periodic abstinence) is one way to persuade oneself that one’s position “must be just”. To move toward revising one’s position to be more in line with the Church’s teaching may well be difficult after many years of living (and acting in accord) with the reverse position.

Please have the courtesy not to think you know what I mean when you are so far off the mark…

Blessing and peace

And by the way I am nearly 80 and a life long celibate who cares very deeply for others. And with no intention of changing on this. For reasons my friend the other poster has expressed eloquently.

Have a lovely day and excuse me please; Just up and very busy getting ready for a three e day craft fair to “feed the hungry and clothe the naked” including babies dumped after birth in poor countries