A reader writes:
Dear Jimmy: A
Catholic friend of mine mentioned her husband recently had a surgical
sterlization procedure. A general discussion on contraception followed,
when I informed her I believed church teaching classifies contraception
as gravely sinful (mortal sin) as an infallible teaching she insisted
that was not the case.I would appreciate your clarification and supporting sources if I am in fact correct.
No prob.
You are, in fact, correct. The sinfulness of contraception has been infallibly proposed by the Church and its gravity is grave. These facts are reflected in the Vademecum for Confessors, which states:
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of
contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally
rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive
and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital
chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life
(the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal
self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the
transmission of human life [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added].
I’ve italicized the two key sentences here. The first addresses the infallibility issue. Those teachings that the Church has proposed as definitive are those that, in popular speech, have been taught infallibly, either by the Church’s ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium; in the case of this teaching, it has been so taught by the ordinary Magisterium. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this
infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a
definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…. the infallibility
promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together
with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all
in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme
Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely
revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions
"must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This
infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation
itself [CCC 891].
The second italicized sentence from the Vademecum indicates the gravity of the sin of contraception and states that it is grave. This means that, when done with adequate knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin
is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full
knowledge and deliberate consent" [CCC 1857].
Just to add, the Catholic Church does not say that one should have as many children as possible, but space children for “just reasons” (CCC 2368)
Natural Fmaily PLanning is such an option.
Jimmy:
Please help me to better understand this issue. I don’t need convincing on the sinfulness of contraception. I need to better understand the relationship to NFP, which the Church allows.
In your initial post, you state: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful”. But doesn’t this occur in NFP? Isn’t the couple planning their sexual relations around a time that it is almost certain to be unfruitful? Aren’t they divorcing the pleasure of the act from its openess to life? Isn’t their intent the same as the couple who uses artificial contraception; only the “means” being different?
I do understand that God did not design us so that every sexual act produces children. Of course, NFP takes advantage of this. I also know that there is always a chance of new life, even when practicing NFP properly. But there is also that chance with artificial contraception. It is not 100% effective.
Help me understand the distinction here. My logic must be flawed, because I know the thinkers in the Church are a lot smarter than I am!
Thanks.
Thank you David. I have wondered the same thing as you.
Media: Shut Up About “Women Priests”
OK…it was merely annoying at first, but now it seems every two-bit local news organization has to repeat the same tired rubbish about how Americans want this or that which is in total contradiction to Holy Tradition or Church teaching.
In the abov…
Using NFP does not intentionally render any act unfruitful. NATURE *might*, and, in most cases, will.
But the couple is not intentionally hindering the remote possibility that God/nature can still allow conception to occur.
Oh, I see that Jimmy has already answered Dave’s question on the blog. Here, I’ll post the follow-up link for you:
Dave’s question
Sorry, I meant “David”, not “Dave”
NFP is allowed for a grave reason. Catholics should consult with their confessor before practicing NFP. Waiting a few years to save money for a goal of some kind, is not a grave reason, nor is a higher standard of living.
Today, NFP is taught but no mention is made of the proper use of it.
NFP should be the exception, not the rule.
Today, it is the rule for those Catholics who
are not contracepting, and statistics show most Catholics use birth control.
Why do you think parish priests are so afraid to preach against this.
They will endure a boatload of complaints, lose parishioners and the bishop will get angry letters.
Sin, hell and conversions are off the table, so that leaves ” peace “.