Why does the Catholic Church consider contraception a sin?

[AdamP88]

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

None of that makes your stance on contraception correct though.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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…”

But many were “confused” that Church teaching can change.
Likewise the old Mass … which past Popes and Conciliar statements attempted to say we’re for all time and anyone who voiced otherwise was under pain of anathema.

The same with AL. Some people just cannot easily accept change in what they mistakenly believe has been forever.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

I have no reason to believe manifest means private but am willing to be enlightened.
I would not think a priest may act on matter revealed purely under the seal.
A remarriage by its very nature is manifest.

Likewise I have no reason to believe obstinate and “regularly contracepting quietly in good conscience” are easily conflated as equivalent terms.

 

[Rau]

But many were “confused” that Church teaching can change.
Likewise the old Mass … which past Popes and Conciliar statements attempted to say we’re for all time and anyone who voiced otherwise was under pain of anathema.

The same with AL. Some people just cannot easily accept change in what they mistakenly believe has been forever.

The difficulty change presents to some is well understood, but only a small part of the difficulty here. Poor articulation of the rationale and the basis for what is proposed is the issue. Perhaps a couple more footnotes were needed?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

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.

Ok thanks for the correction. I didn’t realise there were 2 separate canons!

 

[Rau]

I have no reason to believe manifest means private but am willing to be enlightened.
I would not think a priest may act on matter revealed purely under the seal.
A remarriage by its very nature is manifest.

Likewise I have no reason to believe obstinate and “regularly contracepting quietly in good conscience” are easily conflated as equivalent terms.

I asked you first - why should the canon require the sin to be manifest to all and sundry, rather than simply to the one called to action - the priest? The canon does not speak of scandal.

I did not mention confession. The person in my example was certainly not making a confession, rather demonstrating their obstinence (or good conscience if you prefer that take…).

Are you seriously suggesting the Canon relates purely to sins which are plain for all to see?

Were the true state of conscience required to be known by the priest before acting as the Canon requires, he could never recognise sin in anyone who claimed (or might claim) “good conscience”. It would seem AL even takes the reverse presumption - the priest needs to be convinced of the lack of grave sin before admitting the person to communion, and then it is despite what may seem manifest to “the public”.

 

[Vico]

I have no reason to believe manifest means private but am willing to be enlightened.
I would not think a priest may act on matter revealed purely under the seal.
A remarriage by its very nature is manifest.

Likewise I have no reason to believe obstinate and “regularly contracepting quietly in good conscience” are easily conflated as equivalent terms.

If anyone was aware of the purchase of condoms, for example, would make it public.

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The difficulty change presents to some is well understood, but only a small part of the difficulty here. Poor articulation of the rationale and the basis for what is proposed is the issue. Perhaps a couple more footnotes were needed?

Its primarily a pastoral document and the pastoral rationale for the practical changes are clear enough to me.
The theology behind it will eventually follow if needed at all.
A change in discipline of course would not need to be explained theologically because there is no change in theology.

For those unwilling to accept this possibility I can understand why they still want a further rationale. There is none likely to come. You either accept the rules can and are changing or you don’t and the Pope is an increasingly stubborn heretic.
There is no other choice .

 

[dcs]

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

Marriage is public, therefore those who attempt marriage after civil divorce are public sinners.

You are right that he didn’t not say “publically,” but in Church law, permissions are interpreted broadly while restrictions are interpreted narrowly. Therefore if the Pope pretends to give permission to public sinners to receive Holy Communion, he pretends to give permission for them to receive It publically.

 

[dcs]

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.

He has no authority to allow this possibility. I don’t think a Pope is a heretic simply because he believes his authority is greater than it actually is. We’ve seen this in the past with Paul VI, who claimed the authority to impose a new rite of Mass on the whole Church.

 

[dcs]

Its primarily a pastoral document and the pastoral rationale for the practical changes are clear enough to me.
The theology behind it will eventually follow if needed at all.

Pastoral practice follows theology, not the other way around.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I asked you first - why should the canon require the sin to be manifest to all and sundry, rather than simply to the one called to action

What’s the fuss, I didn’t ask you anything…my post was just reflecting further on your points.
Why should the Canon require sin to be manifest?..I don’t know, that’s just what it says .

Are you seriously suggesting the Canon relates purely to sins which are plain for all to see?

Yes, pretty much exactly so. For hidden sins it is the other Canon that largely applies and it is largely a self determination hopefully with Confessional guidance.
Why would you think otherwise?

Were the true state of conscience required to be known by the priest before acting as the Canon requires, he could never recognise sin in anyone who claimed (or might claim) “good conscience”.

The determination by the priest in this canon I believe has absolutely nothing to do with judging a person’s conscience. That is not primarily his business in this canon. His role is to make an objective decision as to what is communally appropriate. If a person is not manifestly involved in proscribed objective disorders then the presumption is they should be admitted.
The determination of personal culpability and avoidance of Communion for serious hidden disorders is primarily a self determination.
All fairly straightforward forward to me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Pastoral practice follows theology, not the other way around.

Says who exactly?
The ancient Lex orandi Lex credendi principle would suggest you are mistaken.

 

[Rau]

Says who exactly?
The ancient Lex orandi Lex credendi principle would suggest you are mistaken.

Meaning: “How we worship reflects what we believe”. Thus - beliefs came first, then the manner of worship, or in this context, the manner of pastoral practice.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Meaning: “How we worship reflects what we believe”. Thus - beliefs came first, then the manner of worship, or in this context, the manner of pastoral practice.

At least you are consistent with your patently mistaken translation matching the somewhat mistaken assertion below!

It is unfortunately a common weakness with autodidacts not privy to the institutional knowledge of a living scholarly fraternity and tradition.

Even secular Wikipedia gets it right:

Lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin loosely translated as “the law of praying [is] the law of believing”) is a motto which means that it is prayer which leads to belief, or that it is liturgy which leads to theology.

There is nothing more to say here if your unresearched personal assumptions are so strong as to misunderstand even the basics like this.

 

[Rau]

At least you are consistent with your patently mistaken translation matching the somewhat mistaken assertion below!

It is unfortunately a common weakness with autodidacts not privy to the institutional knowledge of a living scholarly fraternity and tradition.

Even secular Wikipedia gets it right:

There is nothing more to say here if your unresearched personal assumptions are so strong as to misunderstand even the basics like this.

Literal translations can leave us short of understanding as you so ably demonstrate Blue. (I generally let your self-important remarks pass, but I thought I’d return one.)

The Church does not “establish” its practices, and then define belief or theology to fit. But rather we can be sure when we look back on practices, such as the liturgy of celebrations of the mass, we can be sure they reflect belief.

Pius XII addresses this in Mediator Dei. Here is a small extract:
*“The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. etc.”.

Consider even your meat discipline. To skip meat on Fridays has a reason from the start - it was not established later.*

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Literal translations can leave us short of understanding as you so ably demonstrate Blue. (I generally let your self-important remarks pass, but I thought I’d return one.)

The Church does not “establish” its practices, and then define belief or theology to fit. But rather we can be sure when we look back on practices, such as the liturgy of celebrations of the mass, we can be sure they reflect belief.

Pius XII addresses this in Mediator Dei. Here is a small extract:
*“The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. etc.”.

Consider even your meat discipline. To skip meat on Fridays has a reason from the start - it was not established later.*
As I say Rau, if you cannot accept that praxis often precedes theology and gives rise to theology there is no common ground for rational discussion.
Even more so if you deny the reasonable Wiki explicitations of what LOLC means .

 

[Rau]

As I say Rau, if you cannot accept that praxis often precedes theology and gives rise to theology there is no common ground for rational discussion.
Even more so if you deny the reasonable Wiki explicitations of what LOLC means .

I read this to be a bowing out. Ok.

PS: Read a little further in that Wiki article you’ve relied on to find the “Catholic” section. Pius XII will be found correcting certain misunderstandings. Very reasonable indeed.

 

[mvercimak]

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).”

In as much as I highly respect the writings of St. John Paul II. He was after all a man –not Jesus. Just as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both erroneously taught and believed that the ensoulment of a human took place at the point of quickening JPII may not be the last word either. Note the substitution of the word “murder” for the word “kill” as it appears in the bible. (Mt 19:18) RSVCE. Murder in common usage is a legal term that implies malice and forethought. Perhaps the use of the proper term-kill-would have suggested inconsistency in the instance of war, capital punishment, deadly force etc. Similarly stealing and lying have easily demonstrable instances where they are justified and no sin is committed. Therefore, your premise that negative precepts of the moral commandments are absolutes is not sound.

Incidentally, paragraph 81 gives a laundry list of intrinsically evil acts and, guess what, contraception is not one of them. I don’t think it slipped JPII’s mind as he discusses it in the very next paragraph which is replete with “wiggle room” for contraception. This makes sense, after all, because you never hear of a prayer vigil outside of a drugstore that sells condoms.

Rather than using the “cut and paste” approach to reply to the arguments I have put forth I would like to hear your response the real argument I proposed:

The difference between NFP and some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of children and limiting family size amounts to artificial subjective constructs such a perceived ‘naturalness’ and the false supposition that people who use a method other than NFP are not open to the possibility of life

And just to curb the desire to stuff more straw men let us restrict the comparison to NFP vs. male condom.

Okay Go!

 

[Rau]

In as much as I highly respect the writings of St. John Paul II. He was after all a man –not Jesus.

He was Pope and a Saint. Your reason to discard what he teaches is that you consider your judgement superior.

Murder in common usage is a legal term that implies malice and forethought. Perhaps the use of the proper term-kill-would have suggested inconsistency in the instance of war, capital punishment, deadly force etc.

Then substitute intentionally kill the innocent if you prefer.

Do you believe we are commanded to offer no defence in a manner that risks another life? Do you also believe capital punishment is not permitted? Perhaps you believe a nation may not defend itself?

Similarly stealing and lying have easily demonstrable instances where they are justified and no sin is committed. Therefore, your premise that negative precepts of the moral commandments are absolutes is not sound.

No, they don’t. Consider stealing - is it theft for a starving man to take an apple from a farmer’s tree? The dictionary definition of theft will say yes, but - as a moral act - it is not theft for the man in dire circumstances to expropriates the item for God is the first owner of all goods. This is well covered in theological writings which you can research.

Incidentally, paragraph 81 gives a laundry list of intrinsically evil acts and, guess what, contraception is not one of them.

Was there a need to list all? Are you any doubt about what the Catholic Church teaches?

Rather than using the “cut and paste” approach to reply to the arguments I have put forth

Please excuse me for pointing you to what has been taught by the Catholic Church. I may have mistakenly assumed that carries more weight that my own words.

The difference between NFP and some (not all) of other methods of timing the birth of children and limiting family size amounts to artificial subjective constructs such a perceived ‘naturalness’ and the false supposition that people who use a method other than NFP are not open to the possibility of life.

Define “open to life”? Your meaning seems to be that persons are “prepared to have children, but are free to control the timing by a range of means, including contraceptive methods (eg. condom)”. The Church teaches that every sexual act should be “open to life” (that is, not have its procreative nature intentionally removed).

I’ve already addressed you claim that NFP and contraception are not materially different in prior posts. A condom changes the sexual act; mutual masturbation changes the sexual act, the pill changes the sexual act - all deprive it of its procreative aspect which is intrinsic to the nature of the act. This is the very thing the Church objects to in respect of contraception, and the reasons for this are set out in Humanae Vitae. Periodically abstaining does not change the nature of the act. This difference can’t be described as 'artificial subjective constructs…". It is real and tangible. People resist adopting NFP on account of it being different in a “real and tangible” way.