Contraception Question

[Dominus Fidelis]

A member recently said in another thread...

"Catholic teaching is that one cannot morally consent to have sex while using a contraceptive for any reason, regardless of their circumstances."

A priest recently told me that the motivation for contracepting needs to be examined and that conscience should be the guide. For example, if the couple doesn't want to spend the money, or doesn't want to be bothered with parenting or something similiar, then it is sinful to contracept.

But what if the couple had legitimate health concerns for contracepting or something similiar?

This room for examination is different that the official teachings that I have read about and heard on this forum, which are similiar to the quoted statement, so I was wondering about it.

I am going to attempt to talk to him again today to see if I understood correctly.

Thoughts?

PS

This priest is not "flaky" and seems pretty orthodox to me. I teach RCIA with him and he seems like a solid priest. This is the only thing I have heard differently and I wonder if room is given to priests for such situations even though the official answer is "No contracepting!"

 

[geocajun]

A member recently said in another thread...
"Catholic teaching is that one cannot morally consent to have sex while using a contraceptive for any reason, regardless of their circumstances."

whoever said that should be given an award!
(it was me)

But seriously, one can no more kill and get away with it because their conscience said it was "OK" than they can contracept and get away with it for that reason.
It is true one should follow a sure conscience however one must form their conscience in light of the teaching of the Church, and there is nothing anywhere from the Church stating that if one forms their conscience to say something opposite of what the Church says that was their right, and its all good.

There are many who have staked their reputation as theologians on the line over this issue and it has resulted in a sort of 'mini-magisterium' phenominon. Now groups of people are following particular theologians because they agree with them, etc... but its not always easy to tell who is following the real Magisterium.
Many Priests have been confused by this as well - I doubt your Priest is being malicious in saying it. I had a Priest who was fresh out of seminary tell my wife something similar, and I went and straightened him out (while he tried to prove to me that morality is always subjective).
The bottom line is that there is alot of bad info out there, and alot of good Priests fall victim to it.



CCC-2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

 

[anawim]

Humanae Vitae says,

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,"

and

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

So there is some wiggle room for reasons of health, but it is not a blanket permission. It takes serious spiritual discernment that does not allow for individual conscience. A priest and penitent needs to discuss together the individual circumstances and whether this is long term or short term solution.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Exactly anawim...what you wrote was the jist of the conversation that I just had with him to confirm my understand of his previous words.

There is a bit of wiggle room but it has to be serious discussed and the reasons have to be carefully weighed.

He also confirmed to me what I was suspecting, which is that the Church can't come out and state an official statement on this for everyone because it would "open the floodgates" to personal interpretation, etc.

 

[marciadietrich]

A member recently said in another thread...

"Catholic teaching is that one cannot morally consent to have sex while using a contraceptive for any reason, regardless of their circumstances."

I have heard that idea (along with the idea of procreation being the main end of sex and marriage) used on the hardline that if your spouse contracepts against your will then you cannot consent to sexual relations with them, and in the case of vasectomy or tubal never again.

But I believe that there is a possible exception if this, excerpted from Beginning Apologetics 5 by Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham, is correct...
That in Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life you can have sexual relations with a contracepting spouse if:

1- the contraception doesn't have abortive effect
2- the method doesn't pervert the marital act itself
3- you state you do not approve of the contraception
4- you make a reasonable effort to correct your spouse

Now I don't know what methods qualify on that other than tubal or vasectomy and in that you wouldn't have to continually correct after the fact as it isn't required to reverse those things. It would rule out most forms of the pill on basis of #1. I would think it would rule out many if not most others on basis of #2.

That would seem different though than looking at conscience and reasons as making it not a sin at all or not, but rather would seem to apply more to assessing the will in determining if it is a mortal sin or not.

I do believe most pastors give a lot on this issue in trying to be understanding of couple's in their marriages. And lean to the most lenient end of what they themselves understand on the issue.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

A couple more quotes from Humanae Vitae​

​

Observing the Natural Law ​

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)


...

Recourse to God​

For this reason husbands and wives should take up the burden appointed to them, willingly, in the strength of faith and of that hope which "does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us ~}36 Then let them implore the help of God with unremitting prayer and, most of all, let them draw grace and charity from that unfailing fount which is the Eucharist. If, however, sin still exercises its hold over them, they are not to lose heart. Rather must they, humble and persevering, have recourse to the mercy of God, abundantly bestowed in the Sacrament of Penance. In this way, for sure, they will be able to reach that perfection of married life which the Apostle sets out in these words: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church. . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband." (37)

I was wondering if the sterility against their will is what applies in allowing a Catholic to have relations with a contracepting spouse. Also, found the line interesting that by nature births are spaced naturally (and then later if there is "well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances" then there can be recourse to the infertile times exclusively and with intent. ​

And then in second part of quote, in applying this I think priests look towards statements like the above to try to encourage people and lean on those in speaking on the subject - though I don't see anything saying other than priests should teach the truth and laws of God on the matter. ​

I have heard of priests denying absolution to contracepting couples to priests who give it a pass. So a wide berth there, and I think that among priests who are still pretty orthodox. Also, it seems most couples who do contracept may just not go to confession, or just never mention this aspect at all, either out of fear or just don't feel it is a sin. So lots of complexities it would seem in how things are dealt with as opposed to what I hear as the standard.​

Marcia​

 

[geocajun]

I have heard that idea (along with the idea of procreation being the main end of sex and marriage) used on the hardline that if your spouse contracepts against your will then you cannot consent to sexual relations with them, and in the case of vasectomy or tubal never again.

But I believe that there is a possible exception if this, excerpted from Beginning Apologetics 5 by Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham, is correct...
That in Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life you can have sexual relations with a contracepting spouse if:

1- the contraception doesn't have abortive effect
2- the method doesn't pervert the marital act itself
3- you state you do not approve of the contraception
4- you make a reasonable effort to correct your spouse

Now I don't know what methods qualify on that other than tubal or vasectomy and in that you wouldn't have to continually correct after the fact as it isn't required to reverse those things. It would rule out most forms of the pill on basis of #1. I would think it would rule out many if not most others on basis of #2.

That would seem different though than looking at conscience and reasons as making it not a sin at all or not, but rather would seem to apply more to assessing the will in determining if it is a mortal sin or not.

I do believe most pastors give a lot on this issue in trying to be understanding of couple's in their marriages. And lean to the most lenient end of what they themselves understand on the issue.

Marcia

I agree with that. I think it can be tragic too.
To quote Father Corapi "I ask you, is it more pastoral to smile at people as they march on their merry way to hell, or to correct them."

On the first part, yes I have also been taught that a Catholic who has a lapsed or non-catholic spouse who obstinately uses contraception can continue to have marital relations with their spouse provided they adhere to the critera you quoted above.

 

[geocajun]

So there is some wiggle room for reasons of health, but it is not a blanket permission. It takes serious spiritual discernment that does not allow for individual conscience. A priest and penitent needs to discuss together the individual circumstances and whether this is long term or short term solution.

It should be clarified that it is not saying "one can contracept if they have other health issues"

But rather that "If the treatment of health issues nessecarily results in an indirect contraception, it can be licit for the greater good of treating the health issue."

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

It should be clarified that it is not saying "one can contracept if they have other health issues"

But rather that "If the treatment of health issues nessecarily results in an indirect contraception, it can be licit for the greater good of treating the health issue."

That's not what I heard today.

I am talking about contracepting for a particular circumstance in which the confessor and lay person have done significant investigation and discussion.

geo, I know you can quote the official mantra on the subject. I know it is a black and white teaching in the official writings.

I heard from the priest today that it is not so black and white in practical application and that the Church won't state this openly for fear of the floodgates opening like they did for the Protestant churches on the subject.

 

[geocajun]

DF, I don't think its a matter of worry about floodgates myself. I think there are many technical nuances of Catholic morality which aren't conclusive and/or aren't published for public consumption simply because the general public cannot make use of it.
For example, the Church does not explicitly state that hermaphrodites are called to chastity, or that sex-change operations are superficial only.. neither of these are plainly stated in the CCC anyway, and why? I do not think it is because of a serious concern that folks will make bad use of that information, but rather that its simply because it is impractical to try and state every single "if-then-else" scenerio conceivable.
Those charged with teaching the faith and pastoral care of souls are charged with knowing these things, but not the average laymen.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Those charged with teaching the faith and pastoral care of souls are charged with knowing these things, but not the average laymen.

So do you agree that the priest (the one in charge of pastoral care of souls and charged with knowing these things) and the couple can discuss things deeply and possibly permit contraception for certain situations?

Edit: Sorry, let me add that the priest did say that he can not give permission to do it, just that there is more to take into account than the blanket teaching against it.

 

[geocajun]

So do you agree that the priest (the one in charge of pastoral care of souls and charged with knowing these things) and the couple can discuss things deeply and possibly permit contraception for certain situations?

Edit: Sorry, let me add that the priest did say that he can not give permission to do it, just that there is more to take into account than the blanket teaching against it.

The Priest cannot make a determination for a couple, but rather can help guide them to make the determination themselves.
I do not agree that any couple can morally decide that their circumstance or reason is sufficient to directly contracept.
It may very well be that due to some other health reason, an indirect contraceptive action could occur. This is a different matter, and a Priest would be able to counsel someone to help them see the distinction.
There is not however a serious enough reason which would permit someone to morally give consent to directly using a contraceptive.
In a case such one spouse is obstinately using contraceptives, the other spouse may have sex with them, so long as they themselves are not consenting to the use of the contraceptive, (and its non abortive, etc..) and makes it known that it is done against their will, and the teaching of the church.
Remember when speaking of subjective culpability "Where there is no consent, there is no sin".

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

"I do not agree that any couple can morally decide that their circumstance or reason is sufficient to directly contracept."

Thanks. I value your opinion because you always state the orthodox truth as it is defined, so I wanted to ask you. Your position contradicts what I was told today though.

 

[geocajun]

"I do not agree that any couple can morally decide that their circumstance or reason is sufficient to directly contracept."

Thanks. I value your opinion because you always state the orthodox truth as it is defined, so I wanted to ask you. Your position contradicts what I was told today though.

Thanks DF. I do my best, but I am certaintly capable of making mistakes. If you feel up to it, take my comments as written to your Priest, and ask him to try to reconsile it with what he told you. I'd certaintly be interested in his response.