Unmarried Couples And Openness To Life

[KnightofChrist]

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.

They should be taught both are sins, and not to commit either. It does great harm to spread the error that contraception is not sinful for the unmarried. Contraception or purposely preventing pregnancy without grave cause, is sinful because it prevents a life, that doesn't change just because the couple is unmarried. Whether the couple is married or not contraception violates God's purpose of the act and His creation of life. Edited January 28, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16] 

[KnightofChrist]

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.

Those that would engage in the act must and should be open to life. Because that is the primary purpose of the act, to procreate, all other reasons would fall in line behind as secondary. If someone does not want children or would refuse to have children they should not partake in the act that creates children.

[Basilisa Marie]

They should be taught both are sins, and not to commit either. It does great harm to spread the error that contraception is not sinful for the unmarried. Contraception or purposely prevent pregnancy without grave cause, is sinful because it prevents a life, that doesn't change just because the couple is unmarried. Whether the couple is married or not contraception violates God's purpose of the act and His creation of life.

 

I think I should point out that even though I'm currently on the "contraception while fornicating might not be an extra sin" side, I definitely wouldn't advocate Catholics promoting or approving contraception to unmarried, sexually active couples. That sends confusing messages. What I'm saying is that practically, I don't think you'd be worried about whether or not a couple having premarital sex is using contraception. The premarital sex is a much bigger issue, I think. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Those that would engage in the act must and should be open to life. Because that is the primary purpose of the act, to procreate, all other reasons would fall in line behind as secondary. If someone does not want children or would refuse to have children they should not partake in the act that creates children.

 

Hmm, yes, the natural end of sex is children, so then would you argue that contraception violates natural law? 

 

But the correct context of sex is marriage. Only married people are 'allowed' to have sex, and it seems like the argument that anyone wishing to engage in it has to be open to life might be ignoring the importance of that context. I guess that raises the question of how important is the context of marriage to the meaning and purpose of sex? 

[Maggyie]

Interesting discussion, not to add more stuff to the discussion, but what exactly was the story with condoms and AIDS? Shame on me, but I no longer recall what the outcome was of that particular kerfuffle.

 

Obviously a couple having extramarital or gay sex is not on the right wave length... but they can use condoms to prevent transmission of the disease? Or not? Was using the condom not really an extra sin in that case? Or NOT using the condom was the extra sin (because it endangered others)? Then again how not-Christian of us to be "counting" sins for lack of a better word.

 

again I can't remember what the bottom line was. And how would you apply it with this conversation?

.

[KnightofChrist]

Interesting discussion, not to add more stuff to the discussion, but what exactly was the story with condoms and AIDS? Shame on me, but I no longer recall what the outcome was of that particular kerfuffle.

Obviously a couple having extramarital or gay sex is not on the right wave length... but they can use condoms to prevent transmission of the disease? Or not? Was using the condom not really an extra sin in that case? Or NOT using the condom was the extra sin (because it endangered others)? Then again how not-Christian of us to be "counting" sins for lack of a better word.

again I can't remember what the bottom line was. And how would you apply it with this conversation?
.

I would agree that for a homosexual couple the use of contraceptives like condemns, would not be an added sinful act, because such couples cannot procreate. Edited January 28, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CatherineM]

Now you guys know how hard it can be to answer these questions sometimes, and why I get so much hate mail.

[Basilisa Marie]

Interesting discussion, not to add more stuff to the discussion, but what exactly was the story with condoms and AIDS? Shame on me, but I no longer recall what the outcome was of that particular kerfuffle.

 

Obviously a couple having extramarital or gay sex is not on the right wave length... but they can use condoms to prevent transmission of the disease? Or not? Was using the condom not really an extra sin in that case? Or NOT using the condom was the extra sin (because it endangered others)? Then again how not-Christian of us to be "counting" sins for lack of a better word.

 

again I can't remember what the bottom line was. And how would you apply it with this conversation?

.

 

Pope Benedict said a male prostitute using condoms to prevent transmission of HIV was evidence of some stirrings of conscience.  Something like that. Basically the only good thing about that situation was the desire to shield others from a deadly virus. 

[Slappo]

Pope Benedict said a male prostitute using condoms to prevent transmission of HIV was evidence of some stirrings of conscience.  Something like that. Basically the only good thing about that situation was the desire to shield others from a deadly virus. 

Exactly. The issue on condoms that Benedict spoke of as being stirrings of a conscience or evidence of good will or whatever you'd like to call it had to do explicitly with the mindset that doing something to prevent harm to others was a sign of a desire to do good. It had nothing to do with contraception except that contraception was the analogy.

 

 

Like killing someone quickly is "better" than torturing them... Not that killing someone quickly is good.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Slappo

[KnightofChrist]

I think I should point out that even though I'm currently on the "contraception while fornicating might not be an extra sin" side, I definitely wouldn't advocate Catholics promoting or approving contraception to unmarried, sexually active couples. That sends confusing messages. What I'm saying is that practically, I don't think you'd be worried about whether or not a couple having premarital sex is using contraception. The premarital sex is a much bigger issue, I think.

 
I would differ, preventing a human being from existing, directly trying to prevent God from creating life is the greater sin. Fornication while it is very much a serious sin that greatly harms the soul it is not unnatural. But contraception is unnatural, and a unnatural form of birth control, because it interferes with the natural order of procreation. This also goes to one reason why NFP is different because it is natural, hence why it is named Natural Family Planning, it does not unnaturally interfere with the act of procreation, it is also different based on the prior quote of Pope Paul VI.
 

Hmm, yes, the natural end of sex is children, so then would you argue that contraception violates natural law?

 

The first part is the answer, because it prevents the natural purpose of the act of sex, to procreate.
 

But the correct context of sex is marriage. Only married people are 'allowed' to have sex, and it seems like the argument that anyone wishing to engage in it has to be open to life might be ignoring the importance of that context. I guess that raises the question of how important is the context of marriage to the meaning and purpose of sex?

The context is intentionally attempting to prevent pregnancy. The Church in many cases assumes that the couple is married, but if you read pass words or phrases like 'conjugal act' (this word btw does not always mean the persons are married, ie: inmates can have conjugal visits with a person that is not their spouse, and conjugal can simply mean 'together'), or 'marriage act' and look at the whole teaching you'd see that it is the prevention of pregnancy that is the primary problem, and that breaking of the union between the married couple is secondary in comparison.

[Lilllabettt]

the problem is lack of reverence for sex.

 

premarital sex, contraceptive sex ...  these are sacrilegious actions in that they are a counterfeit apeing of something holy and sacred. Is it "better" or "worse" for people engaged in premarital sex to use contraception? Is it better or worse for people to commit sacrilege this way or the other way? It's a funny kind of question.

[Slappo]

Separating the definition of sex from the conjugal act (sex within the context of marriage) is like separating the body from the person.

 

Sex was designed for marriage and for no other purpose. The body was designed for the person as a body-soul unity, and they are so united that even after the body is separated from the soul upon earthly death, it will be reunited with the soul at the resurrection. A person is incomplete without the body, and so to is sex incomplete without marriage.

 

The problem with contraception is dual. Contraception isn't just a sin against the procreative aspect of sex, but also of the unitive aspect. A condom is withholding a man's sperm from the act, and the pill is withholding a woman's fertility from the act. How is sex a uniting of two persons if they are withholding part of themselves? Sex is an entirely self-giving act, and to do anything other than give yourself entirely is a crime against nature and a sin against God.

 

The use of contraception outside of marriage has two problems:

1. The fornication part of it (outside of marriage) is a sin against unity as the two have not given themselves entirely to each other. They have given their flesh but not the spirit.

2. The contraceptive part of it is a sin against both unity and procreation as A. the two have not given themselves entirely to each other and B. they have deliberately removed the procreative aspect of sex from the act.

 

In a very real sense, contraception is a bigger problem than fornication.

 

Maggie also has a point when it comes to "counting sins" though.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Slappo

[Slappo]

I would say that contraceptive intercourse outside the context of marriage is more disordered than intercourse outside the context of marriage. I think that terminology gets rid of the "counting sins" problem.

 

Both are disordered, both are grave matter, and both can end up with you in hell.

[Basilisa Marie]

Two things: 

 

1.  :clapping:

 

2. So let me get what you're saying straight - fornication is a sin against unity; contraception is a sin against unity AND the procreative aspect. That's fascinating. And it makes a lot of sense, when you think about the effects the widespread availability of contraception has had on our culture.  People have been fornicating since practically forever, but easy access to "effective, reliable, etc" contraception really made the difference in how our culture understands sex. 

 

This has been a great discussion. :)