Why is contraception and missing your Sunday obligation a mortal sin?

[Cari]

I’m not trying to speculate on anything. Is it or is it not a teaching of the church that a person who dies with a mortal sin on his/her soul goes to hell? And if the church also teaches that using contraception is a mortal sin, well then, it seems logical that anyone who uses contraception and doesn’t repent from it goes to hell, no?

From the Catechism:
1861: However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grace offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

We can judge, through the teachings of the Church, an act to be a mortal sin or not. However, we cannot judge where the person goes in the afterlife, as we have no idea if he repented in the final moments, the extent of God’s mercy, etc.

So just to clarify, if a Protestant or a non-Christian is *aware *of the Catholic teaching about contraception, but chooses to follow the teachings of his own religion instead, then the use of contraception (assuming non-abortifacient type) is *not *a mortal sin?

From the Catechism:
*1860: Unintentional Ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputablility of a grave offense…
*
…so even if a non-Catholic is *aware *of Catholic teaching, that doesn’t mean they are removed from unintentional ignorance, as many such people don’t understand the basis of the teaching.

*1860 …But no one is deemed to be ignortant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathalogical disorders.
*
By simply observing natural law, a person, regardless of his knowledge of the Church, should understand birth control (of all forms) to be evil. The Church isn’t “letting people off the hook”, so to speak. What the Church recognizes, however, is that some people, due to upbringing, bias, family pressure, etc. cannot accept these truths. That’s why, for example, if a spouse refuses to accept Church teachings on birth control, the other spouse is not necessarily commiting a sin by having marital relations (i.e. a husband refuses to stop using condoms, or a wife will not go off the pill). Or, a person raised with violently anti-Catholic biases is not going to follow something because the Catholic Church says so.

Birth control is evil on two levels- one, because it can serve as an abortifacient. Two, because it divides the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act, thereby warping what God intended. Is this second effect observable through natural law? Well, it’s certainly observable through divorce, adultry, rape, and abortion statistics.

That is one of the most dangerous aspects of moral relativism- it teaches people to ignore all sources of law- even natural law- in favor of “one’s own conscience”.

 

[isadora]

Thank you for clarifying, Mike182d and Cari.

From the Catechism:
1861: However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grace offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

We can judge, through the teachings of the Church, an act to be a mortal sin or not. However, we cannot judge where the person goes in the afterlife, as we have no idea if he repented in the final moments, the extent of God’s mercy, etc.

I see, that makes sense. But how does one repent apart from confessing in church? I would imagine that merely “feeling sorry” about what you did wouldn’t cut it…

 

[mike182d]

I see, that makes sense. But how does one repent apart from confessing in church? I would imagine that merely “feeling sorry” about what you did wouldn’t cut it…

You’re right. That’s why there’s purgatory.

 

[isadora]

You’re right. That’s why there’s purgatory.

So then is it possible to enter purgatory with mortal sins? If so, what determines hell vs purgatory? Is it possible to repent in the moment of death and enter purgatory instead of hell?

(Sorry for the excessive questions, but this issue really confuses me)

 

[fix]

Actually they do, they’re both just as dangerous and just as unhealthy as contraception.

Speeding and eating fatty foods are not intrinsically evil. They both may be wrong under certain circumstances, but contraception is a moral evil and is always wrong. Physically contraception impairs a healthy, functioning organ, and changes it to one that functions as not intended. There is not enough space here to explain all the arguments but fertility is not simply something we use and may manipulate as if it were a mere tool.

My main point here, was not really to debate whether or not it was permitted. It was a response to someone’s claim that these things make your uterus dysfunctional or unhealthy. From experience, I know this is untrue. I encourage you to at least do some research before making baseless claims such as these. (Pointed at no one (name removed by moderator)articular, certainly not you Fix, just a general rule.)

The drugs work to alter the nomal functioning of the organs. Healthy organs do not require treatment. We have made fertility a disease. It is not a disease.

In your humble opinion maybe. I certainly don’t see it that way at all. There’s nothing wrong with exerting a little control now in then.

Question…

Does this mean you would refuse to take medication prescribed by your physician? Say - if it was to bring down your cholestrol or thin your blood? Those medications have risks and also alter your natural physiology. Would that some how bring into question your dignity?

The profession of medicine exists to restore health and prevent disease, within the constraints of morality. Treating hypercholesterolemia is fine. What pathology is treated with an IUD?

I’m going to assume you’re not a woman, and if you are… then you’ve never suffered debilitating pain for days on end due to menstration. For me it’s not just about avoiding an unwanted pregnancy, it’s about relief. It’s not everyones reasoning, but it’s a different perspective.

If one is treating a legitimate pathology then those medicines may be acceptable. Folks argue there are better therapies, but I do agree those drugs may be acceptable to treat illness. Again, what illness is fertility?

Yes I do realize we’ve gone thousands of years without this to relieve our discomfort. That doesn’t change the fact that we have the ability to do it now, and much like an epidural I welcome it with arms wide open.

It seems you use too broad a category without properly evaluating all the criteria needed to make an informed moral decision. No one here would deny the need to treat pain or any pathology. What they speak against is the redefining of health and disease to further the culture of death.

 

[Cari]

So then is it possible to enter purgatory with mortal sins? If so, what determines hell vs purgatory? Is it possible to repent in the moment of death and enter purgatory instead of hell?

(Sorry for the excessive questions, but this issue really confuses me)

From: The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 found at newadvent.org/summa/5010.htm
*
If the dying man was in mortal sin Paradise was closed to him before he conceived the desire to confess his sin, although afterwards it was opened by contrition implying a desire for confession, even before he actually confessed. Nevertheless the obstacle of the debt of punishment was not entirely removed before confession and satisfaction.*

Now bear in mind, the Summa Theologica isn’t necessarily Church doctrine. I can’t find this in the Catechism (which doesn’t mean it’s not there, it’s just that I can’t find it), that if a dying man sincerely repents of his sins, and wishes to confess, but is unable to receive confession before dying, the sin is forgiven, and the person may (although only God can say for certain) enter Purgatory, instead of being condemned to Hell.

I don’t know if what this means for Christians who do not accept the Sacrament of Confession.

So to answer your other questions:

1. no, it isn’t possible to enter Purgatory with unconfessed mortal sins on your soul.
2. What determines Hell or Purgatory (aside, of course, from God’s Justice), is the nature of confession and repentance.
3. What form that confession and repentance takes in the final moments is a mystery known only the the soul and God.

I will dig around in the Catechism some more and see if I can find citations.
C

 

[contramundum7]

Wrong. It makes it neither dysfunctional or unhealthy in most cases. Usually the uterus continues to truck along as always, it is just fooled into thinking the cycle is at it’s end. (ie: No lining)

There are many more things then just our uterus that makes us women.

I don’t view it that way at all. It allows us to choose when we think it is a good time. Rather then having it arbitrarily chosen for us.

Be fruitful and multiply? We’re 6 billion strong currently. I think we’ve multiplied more then enough

I have known women who used the pill for a number of years, then when they wanted 2 conceive, they couldn’t. Does anyone out there know of a connection (proven to exist) between b.c. and infertility? But even if not, it stands to reason that messing w/ nature is never good…
Also, the IUD causes early abortions…

 

[contramundum7]

So then is it possible to enter purgatory with mortal sins? If so, what determines hell vs purgatory? Is it possible to repent in the moment of death and enter purgatory instead of hell?

(Sorry for the excessive questions, but this issue really confuses me)

There is a book called Purgatory sold by Tan Books ($5.00?). It is very intereting… in some places even hard to believe… But scripture backs up the book… (written by a priest).

 

[contramundum7]

From the Catechism:
1861: However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grace offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

We can judge, through the teachings of the Church, an act to be a mortal sin or not. However, we cannot judge where the person goes in the afterlife, as we have no idea if he repented in the final moments, the extent of God’s mercy, etc.

From the Catechism:
*1860: Unintentional Ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputablility of a grave offense…
*
…so even if a non-Catholic is *aware *of Catholic teaching, that doesn’t mean they are removed from unintentional ignorance, as many such people don’t understand the basis of the teaching.

*1860 …But no one is deemed to be ignortant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathalogical disorders.
*
By simply observing natural law, a person, regardless of his knowledge of the Church, should understand birth control (of all forms) to be evil. The Church isn’t “letting people off the hook”, so to speak. What the Church recognizes, however, is that some people, due to upbringing, bias, family pressure, etc. cannot accept these truths. That’s why, for example, if a spouse refuses to accept Church teachings on birth control, the other spouse is not necessarily commiting a sin by having marital relations (i.e. a husband refuses to stop using condoms, or a wife will not go off the pill). Or, a person raised with violently anti-Catholic biases is not going to follow something because the Catholic Church says so.

Birth control is evil on two levels- one, because it can serve as an abortifacient. Two, because it divides the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act, thereby warping what God intended. Is this second effect observable through natural law? Well, it’s certainly observable through divorce, adultry, rape, and abortion statistics.

That is one of the most dangerous aspects of moral relativism- it teaches people to ignore all sources of law- even natural law- in favor of “one’s own conscience”.

If a spouse refused intercourse because the other was taking the pill or using a condom, i’d assume that pretty soon, he/she would stop.

 

[Cari]

If a spouse refused intercourse because the other was taking the pill or using a condom, i’d assume that pretty soon, he/she would stop.

Maybe. Or maybe it would be the thing that caused the marriage to fail. However (and I juuuuust put my Catechism away, and it’s in the next room, and I’m a million years pregnant and way too lazy to go waddle back and get it ) I know that the Church teaches that, in the interest of marital harmony, the non-contracepting spouse isn’t commiting a sin, but should pray for and lead the contracepting spouse by example. If anyone who isn’t a million years pregnant and/or as lazy as I am has their Catechism handy, could they find the citation for that?

 

[isadora]

Thanks for your replies, Cari and Contramundum.

OT, but is there a good Catechism source online? I found this one, but in case someone recommends something else…

 

[contramundum7]

Maybe. Or maybe it would be the thing that caused the marriage to fail. However (and I juuuuust put my Catechism away, and it’s in the next room, and I’m a million years pregnant and way too lazy to go waddle back and get it ) I know that the Church teaches that, in the interest of marital harmony, the non-contracepting spouse isn’t commiting a sin, but should pray for and lead the contracepting spouse by example. If anyone who isn’t a million years pregnant and/or as lazy as I am has their Catechism handy, could they find the citation for that?

If a marraige fails over that, it wasn’t a good one in the 1st place. Perfect love is unconditional… & marriage is forever.

Also: I never thought the day would come when i would disagree w/ the Church… But like u say, you don’t have the catechism… so (& neither do i) maybe that’s not exactly what it says or there is more to it…?? Myself, if i were married, i woiuld not have sex with my husband if he insisted on using a condom…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Maybe. Or maybe it would be the thing that caused the marriage to fail. However (and I juuuuust put my Catechism away, and it’s in the next room, and I’m a million years pregnant and way too lazy to go waddle back and get it ) I know that the Church teaches that, in the interest of marital harmony, the non-contracepting spouse isn’t commiting a sin, but should pray for and lead the contracepting spouse by example. If anyone who isn’t a million years pregnant and/or as lazy as I am has their Catechism handy, could they find the citation for that?

That’s not in the Catechism. It’s burried in another Church document called the Vademecum for Confessors, which I believe was intended to give priests help in administering advice and counsel with the Sacrament of Confession. cin.org/vatcong/vademec.html

It’s sometimes hard to find a good confessor, so having access to this Church documents may help ease the minds of some Catholics who sincerely wish to follow Church teachings when their spouse refuses. If a priest has told something similar to any one you, he might be following Church guidelines. While I (and others) often sight that document here on CA forums, I strongly urge anyone in such a situation to search out a good priest for guidance. People must be extremely honest with themselves as such abuse of the marital act means at least one of the participants objectively commits a mortal sin.

If a marraige fails over that, it wasn’t a good one in the 1st place. …maybe that’s not exactly what it says or there is more to it…?? Myself, if i were married, i woiuld not have sex with my husband if he insisted on using a condom…

You’re right, that not exactly what it says–see above. Obviously the marriage has problems if one person insists on using contraception while the other fears commiting mortal sin. Anyone in such a situation where their spouse insists on contraception is perfectly within their rights to abstain from relations. But if your choices are husband’s use of condom or his getting vascectomy (possibly even against your knowledge) the situation gets very difficult. And while this document is available on the internet, I once again advice anyone in such a situation to seek confession and counsel from a good and holy priest.

 

[contramundum7]

That’s not in the Catechism. It’s burried in another Church document called the Vademecum for Confessors, which I believe was intended to give priests help in administering advice and counsel with the Sacrament of Confession. cin.org/vatcong/vademec.html

It’s sometimes hard to find a good confessor, so having access to this Church documents may help ease the minds of some Catholics who sincerely wish to follow Church teachings when their spouse refuses. If a priest has told something similar to any one you, he might be following Church guidelines. While I (and others) often sight that document here on CA forums, I strongly urge anyone in such a situation to search out a good priest for guidance. People must be extremely honest with themselves as such abuse of the marital act means at least one of the participants objectively commits a mortal sin. You’re right, that not exactly what it says–see above. Obviously the marriage has problems if one person insists on using contraception while the other fears commiting mortal sin. Anyone in such a situation where their spouse insists on contraception is perfectly within their rights to abstain from relations. But if your choices are husband’s use of condom or his getting vascectomy (possibly even against your knowledge) the situation gets very difficult. And while this document is available on the internet, I once again advice anyone in such a situation to seek confession and counsel from a good and holy priest.

Maybe that’s why i am not married and have been celibate/alone for so long - i am too Catholic… I always try to put Jesus first…

 

[jonesa25]

Commiting a mortal sin doesn’t always lead to damnation–but it means one did something seriously wrong. God will not likely damn everyone who ever used contraception or who missed Sunday Mass, but such behaviors done with full knowledge place souls at risk. The Church warns us that if we commit mortal sins we must repent, confess and ammend our ways. They aren’t mortal sins because the Church says so–the Church says so because objectively they are serious and grave sins.

I think this language is unhelpful. God does not damn anyone. The definition of Salvation is being united in a unrestrained and infinite love affair with the Lord. All love affairs require two persons who love each other. God always extends his love to us, totally and completely. The only question is whether we will return it. Mortal sin sends someone to hell, not because God is punishing him, but because to commit a mortal sin is to reject the love of God, and to reject the love affair that is heaven. So, whether or not God would send someone to hell for a particular sin is not the question. The question is whether a particular sin constitutes a rejection of God’s love. We are not sent to hell; we choose it.