Contraceptives

Cary.Melvin · Nov 19, 2003

Shelb5 said:
Using any artificial means of B/C or a barrier method is a mortal sin, yes. I thought we all made that pretty clear. Contraception as a whole is a sin, one can also be in sin when using NFP. The contraception mentality feeds into the culture of death.

What is the definition of a Grave Matter?

geocajun · Nov 19, 2003

Cary.Melvin said:
What is the definition of a Grave Matter?

grave = serious
The Church will let us know if its serious or 'grave' matter

geocajun · Nov 19, 2003

If this has already been stated, then sorry for the repeat.

In order for something to be a mortal sin the three requirements must be met.
1. serious matter
2. full knowledge
3. free consent

If any of those requirements are not met, it is not a mortal sin.

Thus, if a person using contraception does not know any better, they do not aquire the same guilt as someone who does know better yet sins anyway.

A person who does not know any better is not guilty of a mortal sin for using contraception.

Cosmic Charlie · Nov 19, 2003

Cary.Melvin said:
What is the definition of a Grave Matter?

IMO, practicing a non-abortive contraceptive method is not a mortal sin. I actually had to think this through for a long time, but using ABC does not seem to constitute a grave matter. Humanae Vitae never actually says if it is a grave matter one way or the other. It does say ABC is intrisically evil, but intriscially evil acts are not necessary act of grave matter. Stealing is intriscally evil, but there is a differance between stealing a rope and stealing a rope with a horse attached to it. One may be a grave matter the other is probably not.

Also there is the matter of intentionallity. Most people using ABC are not using it with the full intention of causing the downfall of Western Civiliation, continuing and expanding the culture of death and hastening the reign of Satan on earth. (or whatever else ABCers can be and are accused of by their NFP brethern.) Most people use some non-abortive contraceptive method, IMO, because they just honestly don't think that the Vatican has any business imposing itself on the privacy of their marriage. At least that's the reason I get from most ABCers.

So, probably not a grave matter (but debatable I suppose), incomplete intentionality. Its just hard for me to get this to the "mortal" level for most ABCers.

d0c markus · Nov 19, 2003

procreation is not the only reason for sex. If that were true Paul would have said something. Instead he says have sex with your wife so that you dont fall into sin by commiting adultry. To cool the burn in you will.

Cary.Melvin · Nov 20, 2003

Cosmic Charlie said:
IMO, practicing a non-abortive contraceptive method is not a mortal sin. I actually had to think this through for a long time, but using ABC does not seem to constitute a grave matter. Humanae Vitae never actually says if it is a grave matter one way or the other. It does say ABC is intrisically evil, but intriscially evil acts are not necessary act of grave matter. Stealing is intriscally evil, but there is a differance between stealing a rope and stealing a rope with a horse attached to it. One may be a grave matter the other is probably not.

Also there is the matter of intentionallity. Most people using ABC are not using it with the full intention of causing the downfall of Western Civiliation, continuing and expanding the culture of death and hastening the reign of Satan on earth. (or whatever else ABCers can be and are accused of by their NFP brethern.) Most people use some non-abortive contraceptive method, IMO, because they just honestly don't think that the Vatican has any business imposing itself on the privacy of their marriage. At least that's the reason I get from most ABCers.

So, probably not a grave matter (but debatable I suppose), incomplete intentionality. Its just hard for me to get this to the "mortal" level for most ABCers.

This may be a dumb question. But, what is this ABC you keep talking about?

ProCommunioneFacior · Nov 20, 2003

Artificial Birth Control. (Pills, Condoms, etc.)

Cosmic Charlie · Nov 20, 2003

Cary.Melvin said:
This may be a dumb question. But, what is this ABC you keep talking about?

My apologies. I've been discussing contraception on various threads for about a month and a half. I forget myself sometimes. ABC = Artifical Birth Control. For purpose of my my post it is usually non-abortive articial birth control.

Benedicta00 · Nov 20, 2003

d0c markus said:
procreation is not the only reason for sex. If that were true Paul would have said something. Instead he says have sex with your wife so that you dont fall into sin by commiting adultry. To cool the burn in you will.

Really? Explain how so when back in Pauls day, there were no birth control pills or condemns so I do not think he needed to mention that it wasnt okay.

Where do you get that if the bible does not say something then you can draw what ever conclusion you want?

This is not something that anyone needs to mention in the bible. Did God or did he not create the marital act? Did he or did he not create a women with fertile and infertile times? If he created her with infertile times then why in the heck would he want you to take a MAN MADE idea or chemical to interrupt the fertile times when all you have to do is abstain during the fertile times?

Abstain??!! Having to actually sacrifice??!! I guess we have our answer right there, dont we?

Im sorry but this mind set never ceases to amaze me, really. Catholics have more trouble assenting to Gods will when it comes to this, so I know non-Catholics could never understand it.

We will give everything to God wont we, but not our fertility.

geocajun · Nov 20, 2003

Cosmic Charlie said:
IMO, practicing a non-abortive contraceptive method is not a mortal sin. I actually had to think this through for a long time, but using ABC does not seem to constitute a grave matter. Humanae Vitae never actually says if it is a grave matter one way or the other. It does say ABC is intrisically evil, but intriscially evil acts are not necessary act of grave matter. Stealing is intriscally evil, but there is a differance between stealing a rope and stealing a rope with a horse attached to it. One may be a grave matter the other is probably not.

Also there is the matter of intentionallity. Most people using ABC are not using it with the full intention of causing the downfall of Western Civiliation, continuing and expanding the culture of death and hastening the reign of Satan on earth. (or whatever else ABCers can be and are accused of by their NFP brethern.) Most people use some non-abortive contraceptive method, IMO, because they just honestly don't think that the Vatican has any business imposing itself on the privacy of their marriage. At least that's the reason I get from most ABCers.

So, probably not a grave matter (but debatable I suppose), incomplete intentionality. Its just hard for me to get this to the "mortal" level for most ABCers.

Charlie, I am going to post more on this later - because I have get to work, but it seems to me that you are confusing the morality of an act, and serious [grave] matter.
Lets take your example with the rope for instance, both senerios are wrong, but the circumstances were different when the horse was attached, thus increasing the culpability of the theif. It does not change the fact that both times, the person was stealing, and stealing is serious matter.
Intention is only 1/3rd of the critera for determining the morality of an act.
the three are:
object, intent and circumstance. Circumstance really being a secondary factor only useful in determining culpability.
Doing something evil such as contracepting, even with a good intent is still doing something evil. One may not do evil so that good may come of it.
I will write more later.

marciadietrich · Nov 20, 2003

geocajun said:
Intention is only 1/3rd of the critera for determining the morality of an act.
the three are:
object, intent and circumstance. Circumstance really being a secondary factor only useful in determining culpability.
Doing something evil such as contracepting, even with a good intent is still doing something evil. One may not do evil so that good may come of it.

Okay, so there are three criteria on morality, and that is seperate from if it is serious/grave matter and morality not a part of the criteria for mortal sin? OR just not related to the seriousness of the matter? So where does morality in terms of intent/object/circumstance and whether or not something is a mortal sin meet? In terms of the full knowledge or in terms of the full consent? Doesn't impact either knowledge or consent? Impacts both?

I read (in this thread) that it is being an automatic that using ABC is a mortal sin. I have been taught that you can never automatically make that claim just based on whether or not it is a grave or serious subject matter. You can't automatically say missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin without looking at the circumstances. (always grave matter, not automatic it is mortal sin) I would think it would be the same in this case. And a nonCatholic or poorly catechized Catholic might not even realize it is grave. I had to tell my Catholic raised husband that the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary and not Jesus.

Marcia

Cosmic Charlie · Nov 20, 2003

Hear, Hear

I am interested in seeing where geocajun wants to go with this. But I don't quite understand what he trying to tell me from his last post.

I have two independent points: It is debatable as whether ABC consititutes a Grave Matter.

and two:

I didn't think most ABCer's used ABC with the intent of doing evil.

Intent and circumstance are take into account on all sins, venal and mortal.

geocajun · Nov 20, 2003

marciadietrich said:
Okay, so there are three criteria on morality, and that is seperate from if it is serious/grave matter and morality not a part of the criteria for mortal sin?

Let me first say that I am confused by your questions so if my answers are not adequate, please clarify the question so I can try again

The critera for the morality of an act are objective and are used in determining culpability of the person responsible for the act.

OR just not related to the seriousness of the matter? So where does morality in terms of intent/object/circumstance and whether or not something is a mortal sin meet? In terms of the full knowledge or in terms of the full consent? Doesn't impact either knowledge or consent? Impacts both?

This is worded very strangely. There is no mortal sin without consent of the person commiting the sin. Can you please clarify the question.

I read (in this thread) that it is being an automatic that using ABC is a mortal sin.

That is incorrect. ABC is intriscially evil, but unless someone has knowledge of that, and consents to using it they are not guilty for it.

I have been taught that you can never automatically make that claim just based on whether or not it is a grave or serious subject matter. You can't automatically say missing Sunday mass is a mortal sin without looking at the circumstances.

Right, missing sunday is always serious matter, but not always a serious sin.
Culpability is determined by the intention and circumstance.

And a nonCatholic or poorly catechized Catholic might not even realize it is grave. I had to tell my Catholic raised husband that the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary and not Jesus.

yes, we find this alot. It is intrinsic to faith, that it seeks understanding. I hope that we all are constanty seeking to understand more about what it is we believe.

It is great that you are able to explain things to your husband the Catholic doctrines. That can go a long way to helping rekindle a desire to learn more.

geocajun · Nov 20, 2003

Cosmic Charlie said:
It is debatable as whether ABC consititutes a Grave Matter.

It is not debatable - see my points below.
and remember that the teaching of the Church are not simply the Church's opinion on the subject.

Cosmic Charlie said:
and two:

I didn't think most ABCer's used ABC with the intent of doing evil.

Intent and circumstance are take into account on all sins, venal and mortal.

I would like to first point out the following in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

as we can see here, the Catechism first calls contraception "Morally Unacceptable" Regardless of intention.

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:

Here we see that the Catechism quotes Humana Vitae in saying that contraception is intrinsically evil. This is important because Intrinsic means by its nature, it is evil. This can never be good as evil is in its design.
The reason it is evil, is that the sole object is to render procreation impossible.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

We see here, that the the morality of the act cannot be judged solely by the intention. Here we also see that there are objects, which are always gravely illicit regardless of their object or the intention.
This implicitly includes contraception as it is intrinsically evil due to its object which is to render procreation impossible.
So now we see that regardless of intention, or circumstance, there is no way one can use contraception for any reason in good conscience.

Now that we have determined that the object is always seriously evil, we only have left knowledge of that information and free concent to determine if one is guilty of a moral sin for using any form of artificial birth control.

Not everyone who uses artificial birth control is guilty of a mortal sin.
That is due to lack of knowledge or concent, but not lack of serious matter.

Cary.Melvin · Nov 20, 2003

geocajun said:
It is not debatable - see my points below.
and remember that the teaching of the Church are not simply the Church's opinion on the subject.

I would like to first point out the following in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

as we can see here, the Catechism first calls contraception "Morally Unacceptable" Regardless of intention.

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:

Here we see that the Catechism quotes Humana Vitae in saying that contraception is intrinsically evil. This is important because Intrinsic means by its nature, it is evil. This can never be good as evil is in its design.
The reason it is evil, is that the sole object is to render procreation impossible.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

We see here, that the the morality of the act cannot be judged solely by the intention. Here we also see that there are objects, which are always gravely illicit regardless of their object or the intention.
This implicitly includes contraception as it is intrinsically evil due to its object which is to render procreation impossible.
So now we see that regardless of intention, or circumstance, there is no way one can use contraception for any reason in good conscience.

Now that we have determined that the object is always seriously evil, we only have left knowledge of that information and free concent to determine if one is guilty of a moral sin for using any form of artificial birth control.

Not everyone who uses artificial birth control is guilty of a mortal sin.
That is due to lack of knowledge or concent, but not lack of serious matter.

Is Birth Control Via abstinance a mortal sin? It does render procreation impossible.

Would it be intrinsicly evil for a maried couple not to have children by abstaining?

Carrye · Nov 20, 2003

Achieving "birth control" via abstenance is not a mortal sin. This is actually one component of Natural Family Planning, which the Church encourages.

I don't know that abstaining from intercourse is intrinsically evil, but to throw out a hypothetical situation:

If a couple was 'married' in the Church, and never had genital intercourse, their marriage would not have been consummated, and therefore would not be a valid marriage.

Also, one condition that a couple must agree on before being married in the Church is their mutual receptivity to children. This would not be the case in this hypothetical situation, and would be another reason for a marriage to be invalid.

The Church sees human sexuality as expressed in genital intercourse within the covenant of marriage as a beautiful thing. It is here that what a person says, who he/she is, and what he/she does comes together - it is a complete and free expression of self to another. But this unitive act must always be open to the gift of children.

Married people are in a very special way connected to God - they share in creation. This is wonderfully beautiful if we stop to think about it. God could surely make people, body and soul, without the help of humans ... and He actually did as we see in the Creation accounts. I don't think that anyone would argue that He couldn't act in this way again. But He chooses not to. He chooses to allow us to share in His creative work, but He asks those who are married to be open to this.

geocajun · Nov 20, 2003

Cary.Melvin said:
Is Birth Control Via abstinance a mortal sin? It does render procreation impossible.

Would it be intrinsicly evil for a maried couple not to have children by abstaining?

No, and if you refer to my last post you will see that the Church in her wisdom was quoted in saying it wasn't wrong to abstain naturally.
Naturally abstaining does not render procreation impossible when considering natural law procreation whereas chemically altering ones body does make procreation impossible.

I should also add that if one is 'anti-baby' then natural or artificial birth control does not matter. Anti-baby is always sinful.
NFP is only acceptable so long as it is used for just reasons to space children - Not when used as a replacement for contraceptives.

Rising_Suns · Nov 21, 2003

NFP is only acceptable so long as it is used for just reasons to space children - Not when used as a replacement for contraceptives.

Yes, and to elaborate on that, the church also acknlowdges various external reasons for using NFP, like financial difficulties, health problems, etc.

Cary.Melvin · Nov 21, 2003

geocajun said:
No, and if you refer to my last post you will see that the Church in her wisdom was quoted in saying it wasn't wrong to abstain naturally.
Naturally abstaining does not render procreation impossible when considering natural law procreation whereas chemically altering ones body does make procreation impossible.

I should also add that if one is 'anti-baby' then natural or artificial birth control does not matter. Anti-baby is always sinful.
NFP is only acceptable so long as it is used for just reasons to space children - Not when used as a replacement for contraceptives.

So, Does that basicaly mean that the Church requires a maried couple to have children under threat of mortal sin.

Benedicta00 · Nov 21, 2003

Cary.Melvin said:
So, Does that basicaly mean that the Church requires a maried couple to have children under threat of mortal sin.

Of course not, are you not reading?

The Church says you must be open to life at all times and when you take ABC, withdraw, or use a condom you are simply not being open to life.

NFP, can be abused the same way when the mentality is you WILL not have children, you WILL not allowed God into that aspect of your marriage.

ABC pills, with-drawl, condoms are all forbidden by the Church for other reasons besides a person not being open to life. NFP, is not a forbidden by God method to postpone a pregnancy if you really can not have a child THIS MONTH. One should never decide for long term that, we must always be open to Gods will.

NFP, is also God designed, engineered, not man made. If you have a valid reason not to have a child, then NFP is fine.

The mentality is what the sin is. It feeds to this culture of death.

Contraceptives

Roman Orthodox

Priest of the holy smackrament

Priest of the holy smackrament

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few

Roman Orthodox

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Well-Known Member

Priest of the holy smackrament

Senior Veteran

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Priest of the holy smackrament

Priest of the holy smackrament

Roman Orthodox

Weisenheimer

Priest of the holy smackrament

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Roman Orthodox

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency