Contraception and Sin
10 December 2003, 2 pm | Faith
I normally do not directly write a reaction to what I read on other weblogs, but something prompted me to write this one. In the process, I learned something deeper and more visceral about the nature of sin.
The Mystic Cowboy made a parenthetical comment against the Roman Catholic position on contraception:
I have no sympathy for the Roman Catholic stance on contraception - moral relativism, hell, it’s cruel and irresponsible, especially in an overpopulated world.
I am not exactly sure why he slipped this opinion in the middle of a piece on moral relativism from a postmodern perspective, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Church’s position on marriage, sex, and sin. I suspect that he is mixing worldly pragmatism with theology.
First and foremost, the Church believes that the relationship between a husband and wife is a sacred union. Sex, from the Church’s point of view, is not for recreation. It is an expression of the union of a loving and giving relationship, plus, it is for procreation. Anything that interferes with the full, open, and giving union of a husband and wife on a spiritual, emotional and physical level is a sin. Contraceptives are just one of the many interferences of this union. (Pregnancy is seen as a gift. It is one of the results of the full and open union between two loving and giving people.)
On another level, sin, in its simplest form, is a choice that a person makes that goes against the will of God. Natural Law is part of God�s Law. The mechanism of sperm/egg fertilization is nature�s way, and thus God�s way, of initiating new human life. Contraception, by definition, is against (contra) the inception of a zygote/embryo/fetus, and thus against the initiation of life. To go against nature, in effect, is to go against God�s will, or God�s method of bringing life into the world.
To interfere with this mechanism is an act of man�s will, not God�s, and therefore, a sin. There is no moral relativism in this reasoning whatsoever. If you make a choice against God, then it is a sin. Simple as that. What you do with the result of that choice is another matter.
So, you decide to use contraception. Okay. You have your reasons. They are valid and practical reasons. But contraception is still a sin. You are going against nature; you are going against God�s will. You are interfering with the process of giving yourself fully and completely to your spouse. (If you are not married, well, we already know what the Church says about that. The sex maybe great, but there is still an interference between giving yourself fully and completely to your partner.)
One may be tempted to say that the theology of the Church has no practical application to the serious problem of overpopulation. Well, it does, but most people do not like the answer. People throughout history want to have their cake and eat it too. (It is tempting to add that this is even more so now days.)
First, the Church says that a man and a woman must be married before engaging in sex. Second, and more importantly, the Church expects people to develop the virtue of temperance. (Funny how you do not hear much about virtues in the postmodern world.) Temperance, in the classical sense, is where a person applies moderation and self-restraint to his or her urges and impulses. (Temperance in the modern sense has been corrupted by the connotation of teetotalers and alcohol.)
Neither of these two points are followed very closely in the world, especially the second one. So how does one “fix” the results of these sins? The pragmatist says contraception.
Pragmatism is about the practical solution to problems. If avoiding pregnancy is viewed as a problem, then contraception is one solution. I personally feel that it is the easy way out the problem. Perhaps that is why so many people choose that option?
In the end, we just have to accept the fact that we are all sinners. Thank God for His mercy.
DISCLAIMER: The statements made in this journal entry are my interpretation of Church doctrine. I am not an official representative for doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I attempt to follow it to the best of my ability.
Referenced from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically paragraphs 2362, 2363, 2337, and 2370.
![[image: 'Smiling Jesus']](http://journal.cowpi.com/grafiks/sidebar/smiling-jesus2.jpg "'Smiling Jesus'")
![[Jerusalem Cross with Heart]](http://cowpi.com/journal/grafiks/jerusalem-cross-heart.gif "Jerusalem Cross with Heart")
Comments
From my point of view, many people tend to blow this way out of proportion. One pragmatic solution to avoiding pregnancy is of course contraception. You just cannot hide the fact that it is a sin. How big of a sin is it? I do not know the answer. All I can say is live with your decision if you choose to use contraceptives, and remember to ask for forgiveness for *all* of your sins.
∼ πλ · 10 December 2003, 2 pm · by Mark ¬
Mark, you say:
“Anything that interferes with the full, open, and giving union of a husband and wife on a spiritual, emotional and physical level is a sin. Contraceptives are just one of the many interferences of this union. “
I don’t see how contraception interferes with the union of husband & wife. It prevents pregnancy, but I don’t get the connection with the union of husband & wife.
I’ll admit that I just disagree with the church’s stance on contraception - I haven’t heard or read anything that convinces me that it is a sin.
∼ πλ · 10 December 2003, 7 pm · by Steve Bogner ¬
I guess this comes into the topic of relativism with the question of what is sin? You, as a Roman Catholic should see contraception as sin, as most devout Catholics do. That’s one of the rules that comes with being a member. You have a central authority that decides what is and isn’t sin.
I, who am not Catholic, see calling contraception a sin as a sin, which is perfectly acceptable for a Protestant. I see it as an institutional ploy to keep women pregnant and subjugated. I actually have a lot more objections than that but this isn’t about contraception. I’m offering this not to attempt to change anybody’s mind but as a simple explanation of where I’m coming from.
So, when we have competing world views, what is sin? Some would say that what their church preaches is the absolute standard. This is where the charge of moral relativism often gets leveled. Others would say that using contraception is only a sin for the groups that call it so, which is a deliberately relativist position. Still others would say what I’ve just said, that saying contraception a sin is itself a sin. This also exemplafies the common position of conservative religions seeing sin in individual actions and liberal ones seeing the greater sin in institutional ones. It’s a complex issue.
∼ πλ · 10 December 2003, 7 pm · by michael ¬
Michael,
I do not see how sin can be relative. To understand what Christianity calls sin, you must begin with the definition of sin. I do not know exactly what the textbook/doctrinal definition is, but what I stated in my post is very close to it: “…sin, in its simplest form, is a choice that a person makes that goes against the will of God.” If you do not agree with this definition, then it seems any discussion on sin is mute.
Definitions cannot be relative. By definition, definitions are absolute; they must have specific meaning (aside from any connotations). Definitions are a meter stick for contrast and comparison. They categorize, identify and label.
What you see as “…an institutional ploy to keep women pregnant and subjugated”, I see as a consistent, well-reasoned, logical, moral system. It has been in development for nearly two-thousand years. Any position on doctrine must be reached by consensus and stand the test of time and history. Many of its doctrines are hard things to live by. Who am I to throw out the whole system if I do not agree with part of its tenets? You cannot pick and choose what parts of the system that you want to believe in. You must accept the whole because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
To be honest, I have had a very hard time coming to terms with the Church’s position on contraceptives. It seems such a petty thing to call a sin. I have had to think, pray, and meditate on it. Your comment restarted me on my search for a conclusion.
Michael, my purpose of this post was not necessarily to change anyone’s position on contraceptives. My purpose was to try to explain why the Church says contraceptives lead to sin. It is a logical argument starting with sin goes against God’s Law. Natural processes are part of God’s Law. Contraceptives (a choice made by a man or woman) interfere with natural processes. Therefore, contraceptives interfere with God’s Law and must be sin. If you do not accept the conclusion, then it seems that you must refute one of its prepositions.
∼ πλ · 10 December 2003, 11 pm · by Mark ¬
Steve,
Paragraph 2370 of the CCC implies that the conjugal union is the total reciprocal self-giving of a husband and wife. Contraceptives interfere with giving oneself totally to the other and lead to a positive refusal to be open to life.
I think it all hinges on the word “totally” and “refusal to be open to life.” By “totally”, I think it means everything: emotionally, physically, and spiritually. A contraceptive is blocking part of the physical self-giving, and it also denies any gifts that may result of the union.
You have to agree that anything that denies life is a big no-no within the Church. They have just extended it to include everything, including contraceptives.
Please reflect on my statement, “Anything that interferes with the full, open, and giving union of a husband and wife on a spiritual, emotional and physical level is a sin.” By union, I mean the marriage as a whole. This is a loaded sentence. It means anything! When I reflected on that sentence, I got a lump in my throat because I know that I do not always do my best to be completely/totally open and giving of my whole self to my wife. There is always room for improvement.
∼ πλ · 10 December 2003, 11 pm · by Mark ¬
I would like to quote Tom from “Disputations” (http://disputations.blogspot.com/):
“We are created to communicate God to each other, and while it’s dead easy to fail to do that, it’s also not that hard to succeed—since, after all, it’s by God’s grace that we succeed, which mostly requires us not actively hindering it. We can succeed even when neither we nor those we’re communicating with have any explicit idea God is involved. He’s sort of irrepressible that way.”
A contraceptive is “actively hindering it”.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 12 am · by Mark ¬
Many people seem to think that the Catholic Church defines sin as what the Pope says is bad. This is unfortunate, not only because it is wrong, but because it is wrong in so many ways.
These people might be surprised to read the Catechism’s definition of sin, as found in paragraph 1849: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.”
Note what comes first in the things offended by sin: reason! Sin is that which harms what we are and delays us from becoming (by God’s grace) we are meant to be. It violates our nature as humans, not simply the arbitrary will of God, let alone the Church.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 1 am · by Chris Burgwald ¬
I had always thought that contraceptives were not so much a sin in and of themselves, but rather the attitude that they promoted. In our throw-away society, it allows one to throw-away the sacredness of the sexual union of a husband and wife. It cheapens the act of sex and makes life a disposable thing.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 1 am · by Roberta ¬
Well Mark, I still respectfully disagree. I think “… emotionally, physically, and spiritually…” is pretty much an impossible ideal to aspire to. If contraceptives are a sin because they obstruct the full & complete giving of one’s physical self, then to be fair we need to apply that same spirit to emotional self-giving and spiritual self-giving. So if my mind gets distracted during ‘conjugal union’ (hey - it happens!) then I am sinning? If I harbour some spiritual hurt (I have some of those too), and hold it back during conjugal union, then that’s a sin? These things might not be healthy - for the spirit or a marriage - but that does not make them a sin.
I am very much a pro-life person, but I do not believe that contraception - whether it is a pill or NFP - is a pro-life isue. Abortion, euthenasia, and the death penalty are pro-life issues. If I practice NFP or take a pill, either one prevents fertilization that could otherwise naturally take place. The knowledge (NFP) and technology (a pill or barrier method) to control fertilization are indeed powerful, but to say that an act of trying not to conceive is an act of sin just doesn’t make sense to me.
I’ll use Tom’s standard disclaimer on all this:
My opinions and judgment have no authority, and I am not qualified to comment on these matters. I post stuff like this because I usually wind up learning a lot from the responses.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 8 am · by Steve Bogner ¬
I can sympathize with your statement, “…to say that an act of trying not to conceive is an act of sin just doesn’t make sense to me.” But I think the Church believes the that the attitude/intent is also important factor to consider. A moral or immoral act depends not only on the act itself, but also the intent behind the act.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 9 am · by Mark ¬
This next statement is a bit heavy handed:
Contraceptives are linked with abortion in the fact that both deny life. Abortion denies life after the fact; contraceptives deny life before the fact.
If you want a consistent moral system and you believe abortion is wrong, then it seems to follow that contraceptives are wrong too because both deny life.
God is life giving. To deny life in any form or manner is a sin in the eyes of the Church.
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 9 am · by Mark ¬
Hmm… still not convinced. Abortion ends a life. But prior to fertilization there is no life to deny. There is a potential for life, yes I agree with that. There is a potential for life quite often, and most often it is not realized.
The intent of contraception - whether it is abstinence or a pill or whatever - is to control fertilization and as a consequence, to control the creation of life. The church says that abstinence is an accepted method of controlling the creation of life, but other methods of contraception are not. If it is intent that matters, I would say that intent is the same whether one abstains or uses some other method - the intent is to control fertilization (or in your terms, deny life).
This is a good conversation - I don’t think we will convince each other, but it’s good anyway :)
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 10 am · by Steve Bogner ¬
Agreed.
As I have said before, I have had a hard time coming to terms on the Church’s position. All I have tried here is to attempt to explain it. I will quote Tom too and say, my opinions and judgment have no authority…
∼ πλ · 11 December 2003, 11 am · by Mark ¬
Hello Mark,
I honor your decision to abide by the dictates or your faith, even when it throws you into confusion. That is a true devotion and requires great courage. You have your authority, which has the weight of history behind it and many theologians far wiser than I.
And my tradition is much shorter and developed in direct protest to yours. This is simply one more area where our faiths disagree over the details. The Heart of Christ is big enough to encompass it all.
I have to believe that it is the honesty our own hearts and the strength with which we live the heart’s directives that matters in the end. The Pope says that contraception is a sin, so it is right and proper for you to not use it, even speak out against it. I respect this Pope and his deep devotion. He is a holy man. However, I don’t acknowledge him as the infallible voice for God, so in this matter that my church says is a matter of conscience I must follow other voices. For me it would be a sin not to.
There is no relativism here. There is faith. There is conscience. There are also two opposites of authority.
I think that when we look to the center of sin we see past the conflict of codes of conduct and weigh the courage, intention and honesty with which we attempt to live the codes. Codes of conduct change with time and locale. Interior honesty and the willingness to do what we believe is right, regardless of the cost is eternal. Conviction and courage are not relative.
with respect, michael
∼ πλ · 12 December 2003, 12 am · by michael ¬
If contraception is a sin, where does the “rhythm method” fit in to Catholic teachings?
∼ πλ · 19 December 2003, 3 pm · by wjklos ¬
Answering my own question….
Casti Connubii tells us:
“But no reason however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
So for the purpose of preventing or “spacing” children, even NFP (as y’all call it) is not permissable.
Hmmmm. Interesting.
∼ πλ · 19 December 2003, 3 pm · by wjklos ¬
I am not a Church historian, and I am not familar with the document “Casti Connubi”. The Church’s official position on the the rhythm method is not a sin or not “illegal” as you posted. From the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”, paragraph 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.”
The debate on the use of contraceptives hinges on ones definition of the “inner truth of conjugal love”.
∼ πλ · 22 December 2003, 9 am · by Mark ¬
” To deny life in any form or manner is a sin in the eyes of the Church.”
By this line of reasoning we should be having sex 24 hours a day to ensure every woman is pregnant at ALL times.
∼ πλ · 1 March 2004, 6 pm · by nIK ¬
— Sorry, no more comments may be added. —