I know that the use of contraceptives is a sin.
But, Is the use of contraceptives a mortal sin?
But, Is the use of contraceptives a mortal sin?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So... knowing this, and the fact that a life was made, then killed, I would think, yes, they can be a mortal sin.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in an official report that its effectiveness is "in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the inflammatory reaction to various types of IUDs"...and states that there "is one common thread . . . " They all "interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine cavity."
Second Report on IUDs, Dec. 1978, U.S. Dept. of HEW,
Food & Drug Administration Document 017-012-00276-5
Acceptance said:I don't know the official church answer to this question, but I do know that with certain methods of birth control (i.e. depo, IUD, norplant) break through ovulation does occur.
This is an implant under the skin of her forearm that lasts five years. In the first half of that time its effect is to almost always suppress ovulation. In the last half of that time, break-through ovulation is the rule. However, very few pregnancies survive. Clearly, this second half is commonly effective through micro-abortions and prevention of implantation.
As with Norplant, there is some variance from woman to woman, but in a far higher percent of cases Depo Provera suppresses ovulation. Break-through ovulation, however, does occur as attested to by full-term pregnancies recorded with women who were receiving this shot every three months.
I can see where criteria 2 and 3 are met. But the question, Is the use of birth control a grave matter. I think it depends on the type of birth control used. If the birth control causes an an abortion, then I can see how that it could be classified as a grave matter (It breaks one of the 10 commandments). But if it does not, what commandment are you breaking for it to be classified as a grave matter?clskinner said:First, what is a 'mortal sin'?
1) includes grave matter
2) full knowledge
3) deliberate consent
* See also CCC 1859
So yes, the use of contraception is a mortal sin.
Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and Pope JP II's Evangelium Vitae discuss this issue in depth.
Humanae Vitae speaks several times about breaking the moral law - whenever one breaks the moral law he is sinning. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Cary.Melvin said:But if it does not, what commandment are you breaking for it to be classified as a grave matter?
Are you sure about Depo and Norplant? I thought they prevented ovulation.
d0c markus said:why is it a sin to use a condom or to pull out? hope ya dont mind "seperated brethren" joining in?
why is it a sin to use a condom or to pull out? hope ya dont mind "seperated brethren" joining in?
Cary.Melvin said:Well, I don't think anyone has really answered my question yet.
Is using contraception a mortal sin? Or is this subject like a hot potato that nobody wants to touch in our current cultural climate.
CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love (2370).
and...2370Periodic 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.158 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:159
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.1602371<A name=2370> "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161
So there you go2376Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2377Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union. . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
Of course, someone can always be living in sin, however practicing NFP does not a sin make. The Catholic church actually says this form of birth control is acceptable. Quoted from the Catechism:one can also be in sin when using NFP
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.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
Acceptance said:Of course, someone can always be living in sin, however practicing NFP does not a sin make. The Catholic church actually says this form of birth control is acceptable. Quoted from the Catechism:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?