Unmarried Couples And Openness To Life

[An Historian]

The following question was asked in the Q&A section.

 

Is an unmarried couple having sex and on the pill committing one sin or two? I would say two, but a priest just informed me the only sin here was fornication and the ban on artificial birth control only applies to married couples. I don't see how one can accept that as a legitimate answer.

 

The following was the response from CatherineM.

 

Pope Benedict talked about how using a condom for gay men wasn't a sin in that they weren't using it to prevent pregnancy. That caused a lot of confusion. 

I suppose it depends on how you view the contraception. If it is all about avoiding pregnancy, then it's a sin. If it is about breaching the unity between spouses, then it could be argued that if they are not spouses, there is no unity to violate. These are the same arguments some use for or against using NFP to space children. Do they have to be open to life if they are unmarried? 

The bottom line is that it can be difficult to separate and segregate sins. Leading a sinful life opens us up to a variety of sinful behaviour. It's hard to see where one sin ends and another begins. Mud is made up of grains of dirt. Yet, it is difficult to see those grains individually when you slog through the mud. 

It could be this priest is a big picture kind of guy, and wants to focus on getting them out of the sinful behaviour first.

 

Since the original thread was locked I have opened this one because I believe that this answer posited by CatherineM deserves to be answered.

 

And the answer is in the affirmative.  Unmarried couples that engage in the marital act yet use condoms or other forms of birth control have added another sin to that of their fornication.  Contraception is not a subjectively sinful thing.  It is something that fundamentally offends against human sexuality.  I do not want to say that unmarried couples that are fornicating should be "open to life" exactly because unmarried couples should not be engaged in the sexual act to begin with.  But if on top of this grave offense they add artificial birth control then they have added another sin to their souls

[Basilisa Marie]

Interesting question. This came up in one of my ministry classes, and the class was divided straight down the middle on what to do. I think it really depends on how you view what makes contraception a sin. 

 

With premarital sex, there's no unity, and there's no obligation to be open to life. Married couples vow to be faithful and open to life. If contraception is evil because it violates the marriage vows, then people having premarital sex aren't really doing anything additionally sinful by using contraception. If contraception is evil because of something to do with sex itself, that sex always has to be open to life, then using contraception in premartial sex is evil.  So which is it? Sex or Marriage? 

 

Pastorally speaking, if someone walks up to you and says "hey, we're unmarried, having sex and contracepting" what do you do? You certainly wouldn't say "oh, it's better for you to be having sex without the contraception."  That doesn't make any sense at all. The bigger issue is the premarital sex. You'd focus on trying to get them to stop having premarital sex and possibly try to get them to get married, depending on the situation. Along the way you'd certainly inform them that contraception is sinful too... but that's not the real root issue of the problem. 

 

So although I haven't yet consulted any documents in reference to this specific issue yet, this leads me to guess that contraception is evil moreso because it violates the marriage covenant, that the marriage covenant is the real "good" of the situation, and that sex serves the goodness of the marriage. That marriage is higher on the hierarchy of goods than sex, so to speak. 

[Slappo]

If I remember, I'll respond to this when I get home. I presented my senior seminar on the purpose of the marital act, but the topic probably isn't appropriate for me to be responding to (aside from this) on a work computer just because of the content.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Slappo

[KnightofChrist]

The first primary reason that contraception is evil because it is a deliberate attempt to avoid procreation, which is the natural and primary purpose of the act of sex.  A secondary reason that contraception is evil is because it breaks unity between a married couple.

 

 

Contraception, as the Church understands it, is a specific kind of act, i.e. it is a deliberate choice of a specific kind of action. Contraception, we can say, is “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.”(Fr. James Brent O.P., Ph.D., quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2370 quoting Human Vitae, 14.)

 

 

Edited January 27, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

But does the "conjugal act" only refer to sex within marriage? I've always seen it used in reference to sex between married persons, while "fornication" is sex between unmarried persons. 

 

What I mean is, is the phrase more than just a euphemism for sex? 

[KnightofChrist]

But does the "conjugal act" only refer to sex within marriage? I've always seen it used in reference to sex between married persons, while "fornication" is sex between unmarried persons. 

 

What I mean is, is the phrase more than just a euphemism for sex? 

 

The conjugal act is the act of sex between married persons, I've also seen it used as a polite way of describing the sex act. The term used doesn't change the reality that the natural use of act itself, whether the couple is married or not, is procreation and any deliberate attempt to interfere with procreation is a violation of the natural law.

Edited January 27, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

The conjugal act is the act of sex between married persons, I've also seen it used as a polite way of describing the sex act. The term used doesn't change the reality that the natural use of act itself, whether the couple is married or not, is procreation and any deliberate attempt to interfere with procreation is a violation of the natural law.

 

Well, yes. My question is whether or not the evils of contraception have more to do with a violation of the marriage covenant (through sex) or more to do with sex in itself? Because if "conjugal act" really just refers to sex within marriage, then doesn't it follow that contraception is evil because it violates the unitive and procreative purposes of sex within marriage? 

 

So can you really say that premarital sex without contraception is less evil than premarital sex with contraception? 

Edited January 27, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[KnightofChrist]

Well, yes. My question is whether or not the evils of contraception have more to do with a violation of the marriage covenant (through sex) or more to do with sex in itself? Because if "conjugal act" really just refers to sex within marriage, then doesn't it follow that contraception is evil because it violates the unitive and procreative purposes of sex within marriage?

We must be careful not to adopt the modern protestant understanding of the Sin of Onan (Gen. 38:7-10), which is somewhat similar when it purposes that the sin Onan committed, that offended God so greatly that God struck down Onan, wasn't that Onan intentionally violated the natural use of the sex act by wasting his seed, but that he violated the unity of marriage. This is an error, and not even Protestants believed it 50-100 years ago, the traditional teaching both in Catholic and non-Catholic Christianity is that the Sin of Onan was the wasting of the seeds of life, perverting the natural use of sex, procreation into an unnatural act of self gratification.
 

So can you really say that premarital sex without contraception is less evil than premarital sex with contraception?

Sex outside marriage is a sin, and the use of contraception is also a sin. They are two sins are related, but they are two individual sins. Edited January 27, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

The Sin of Onan Revisted

by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.
 

[...] It is Scripture, however, which I wish to dwell upon in this essay -- returning in particular to the case of Onan related in Gen. 38:7-10. I will argue that those biblical scholars upon whose works commentators like Echevarría depend are far from reliable in their exegesis of this passage. The text (in the Douay-Rheims version) reads as follows:

(7) And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.

(8) Juda therefore said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother's wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.

(9) He, knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name.

(10) And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

Now, it has been fashionable among twentieth-century exegetes to maintain that in these verses the Bible condemns Onan's coitus interruptus only insofar as it in effect violated the so-called levirate marriage custom endorsed by the law of Moses at a time when polygamy was not forbidden. According to this ancient oriental practice, a man -- whether he was already married or not -- was expected to marry his deceased brother's wife if she was still childless at her husband's death; and the first-born son of this union was then regarded as a legal descendant of the dead man. In other words, according to those exegetes who focus their attention exclusively on this custom in their reading of Genesis 38, Onan's sin is presented here as consisting only in his selfish intent to deny offspring to his brother's widow Tamar, and not even partly in the unnatural method he employed in doing so.

But, as I hope to show, this reading of Genesis has so little to recommend it exegetically that one can only assume that its popularity in recent decades is due mainly to the modern prejudices of theologians and exegetes who see intrinsically sterile types of sexual activity as morally unobjectionable in themselves (or even as necessary at times) -- and who therefore have a strong vested interest in minimizing whatever biblical evidence there may be against these practices.

The classical Jewish commentators -- who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres -- certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such. A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: "[Onan] misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving of death." And this is undoubtedly in accord with the natural impression which most unprejudiced readers will draw from the text of Genesis 38.

 

[...]

 

Continue Reading...

[CrossCuT]

Now this is something I was discussing with my boyfriend very recently...contraception.

 

I dont use it. We dont have sex.  etc etc...I just want to dispel any big ideas people might get after they read what I have to say.

But I want people to think about this...hopefully I can explain well...but Im not coming from any weird views, Im just thinking about the two...NFP vs contraception. Im curious to dive into the subject deeper and Im beign as open minded as possible.

 

 

 

So KoC said that contraception is evil because it deliberately prevents a new life from forming. That is correct...contraception prevents ovulation. Some people think its evil because it causes abortions...it does not.

 

But NFP also deliberately prevents new life from forming. Granted, it is in a natural way but we are not a culture that shuns technology. 

 

Then you  might say "Well people who use contraception are selfish and dont actually love their partner because they are using them for sex only." Thats not true. I think we are applying some silly stereotypes. You can be very very loving and respectful of a partner while using contraception. Contraception is indifferent. Its the PEOPLE that use you for sex. If someone has the mentality that they want to use a person for sex, it will happen regardless.

 

NFP is contraception. In the sense that it prevents life from occurring. You specifically engage in intercourse when a woman is infertile...when she is unable to conceive. That is exactly how contraception works however it merely makes this window larger because we have the technology to do so. 

 

I think it is a very common stereotype for Catholics to apply a very negative mentality to contraception, but we need to understand that its in the INTENTION where the sin resides.

 

 

 

A couple who practice NFP do so because while they are open to life, they simply dont want or cant have a child at this time.

A couple that uses contraception does so because while they are open to life, they simply dont want or cant have a child at this time.

 

 

A gun isnt bad on its own, it is how it is used.

Contraception isnt bad on its own, it is how it is used.

Maybe not the  best comparison, but do you see what I mean?

 

I do honestly believe that a lot of contraception mentality sprouted from the fact that a lot of catholics believe erroneously that contraception is an abortifacient. 

 

 

And I know people will dismiss this whole thing and say Im going against the church and Im a stupid, feminist, liberal, marxist, hippie or such, but Im honestly just trying to wade through the two here.

 

 

Does this make sense to anyone? Im sorry if it seems like babble.

[NotreDame]

I'm pretty much aligned with Basilisa Marie on this one.  I've never been able to get my head around the idea that unmarried people who are having sex should be told not to use condoms. 

 

I was never under the impression the Church said that per se, but more taught along the lines of "condom promotion is not a solution" to things like aids, illegitimacy, etc.

 

That said, this is an interesting topic and I'm interested what the church actually teaches or what has been written on the subject by folks in the know. 

[Basilisa Marie]

We must be careful not to adopt the modern protestant understanding of the Sin of Onan (Gen. 38:7-10), which is somewhat similar when it purposes that the sin Onan committed, that offended God so greatly that God struck down Onan, wasn't that Onan intentionally violated the natural use of the sex act by wasting his seed, but that he violated the unity of marriage. This is an error, and not even Protestants believed it 50-100 years ago, the traditional teaching both in Catholic and non-Catholic Christianity is that the Sin of Onan was the wasting of the seeds of life, perverting the natural use of sex, procreation into an unnatural act of self gratification.
 

Sex outside marriage is a sin, and the use of contraception is also a sin. They are two sins are related, but they are two individual sins.

 

So you're arguing that sex in itself has to be open to life? I've heard a couple of interpretations of the Onan story, but not that one. Interesting. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Crosscut - I wouldn't call NFP contraception because one of the problems with contraception is that it's you messing with either the way sex works or the way your body works in order to inhibit your fertility. Sure, you can still "technically" get pregnant while using multiple forms of contraception, but the act in itself is a rejection of one's natural fertility, even if temporarily. NFP, on the other hand, is about working with one's fertility to discern the size of one's family. I read once that the people who invented the pill originally thought it would be an okay form of Catholic birth control because there was no physical barrier involved. But the problem is that you're still rejecting your fertility, you're still changing the way your body works with the explicit intent of preventing pregnancy. So maybe I'd say that the Church allows people to regulate the size of their families, but not contracept. 

 

And some contraception IS abortive. Because Catholics believe life begins at fertilization, not implantation, anything that thickens the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation is potentially abortive. A lot of scientists and medical personnel believe pregnancy doesn't start until implantation, so I think that's partly where a lot of people get the idea that contraception isn't abortive.  

 

Some people talk about using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. And while I'm sure that's a thing that happens, I tend to just be happier that people are trying to use NFP in the first place. But it depends on the situation. 

[Archaeology cat]

What Basilia said. There's a world of difference between utilizing the normal cyclic fertility/infertility in a woman's cycle and deliberately altering one's physiology or using a barrier. NFP is hard, and so I really have a hard time seeing people use it for purely selfish reasons, but maybe that's just me.

[Cherie]

Crosscut, read this piece from Fr. Erlenbush:



I think he does a great job explaining that NFP is not contraceptive, nor can it be used with a "contraceptive mentality" (a selfish one, maybe, but not contraceptive.)

ETA: for some reason, it's not letting me post links? Guess you'll have to be in suspense.