Contraception is a mortal sin.
Fornication is a mortal sin.
Having a baby with the cards stacked against him/her is an added evil (destined for hell? Without a stable family, salvation would seem to be in jeopardy)

What I'd like to put out there for our discussion today:

Which is worse?
"cultural Catholics" who don't use contraception because it's a sin, but then have children out of wedlock.

Protestants who engage in the same culture/behaviors, but use contraception so that children don't result from the fornication.



I suppose it could be argued that contraception is an additional sin, and so should be avoided.

But is it really true that every cultural Catholic, Catholic, or even Traditional Catholic who got pregnant out of wedlock was truly trying to remain pure, and didn't see it coming? That's what I have a hard time understanding.

Maybe that's the case, in which case this is a moot discussion. You can't go on birth control just "to be safe".

I'm just wondering why some Catholics of apparently weak faith don't just go the extra step and use birth control like everyone else at the nightclub/bar they frequent. If they're going to enter the "dating scene" (as opposed to Catholic courtship) like everyone else, why not get birth control like everyone else?

But it's also true that contraception leads to abortion -- whereas those who didn't take that step of contraception often have the baby if they end up pregnant -- after all, it was a "surprise" and they didn't have positive hopes up for No Baby like those contracepting.

Or do those surprised by a pregnancy often end up having an abortion?

I would say contraception.

Having a child out of wedlock, is one thing; But, as I believe most of us know, 'contraception' isn't usually contraception, and apart from the added argument you gave, contraception when used with 'the pill' is abortive. In that case, it is definitely worse. If the sin of Onan is used, then I'm not sure.

That's a good point -- any discussion of contraception must be specific.

Some kinds just "interfere" -- others alter the woman's hormones or body chemistry, and those kinds could destroy a fertilized egg (=abortion).

Another point -- those who "take that step" of contraception tend to be more free in their morals -- there's nothing to be afraid of (or so they think). In that case, you're not only adding a mortal sin (contraception) but multiplying the sins of fornication as well.

Great question, Matthew...and not an easy one, either.

I suppose I would tend to imagine that the case of the married Protestant couple that contracepts is the more evil, since there is necessarily a conscious decision inherent in the relationship, agreed upon by both partners, not to reproduce, and to use the gift of human sɛҳuąƖity soley as a vehicle for physical pleasure, in spite of their marital obligation.

In the case of singles (paticularly younger, hormonally active singles), Catholic or otherwise, whose acts happen to cause a baby to be born out of wedlock (removing the possibility of abortion, for the moment), the scenario is probably one of two people who gave in to temptation in a moment of weakness (how they got themselves to that point is immaterial). There was surely no conscious intent to bring a child into the world irresponsibly, and obviously no conscious intent to prevent conception.

I think the gravity of the sin and the culpability of that couple, then, are not as great as that of the contracepting couple. The two singles sin together through immodesty, imprudence, and carelessness, whereas the first couple wickedly conspire together in favor of evil.  

Contraception seems like a strange place to "stop" if you're already driving full-speed-ahead down the road of worldliness and sin.

It's always better to not go farther.  Willingness to use contraception should be seen as a red line, brighter  and thicker than most.  And abortion should be unthinkable.  

It's always better to not go farther.  Willingness to use contraception should be seen as a red line, brighter  and thicker than most.  And abortion should be unthinkable.  

You say that, but to a worldly woman (or man), who already watches TV and engages in worldly dating -- why wouldn't they get sucked into the error of contraception like everyone else?

Heck, plenty of Novus Ordo Catholics buy into contraception, even though they're older (30's or 40's) and AREN'T into things like racy movies and music, nightclubs, immodest dancing, fancy cars, expensive rims, provocative clothing, cell phones, etc.

And I'm sure most of these "social Catholics" know what can happen because of fornication. Aren't they scared of getting pregnant?

You and I know how objectively disordered contraception is. But many people in the world think it's "responsible" and whatnot.

Which is worse?
"cultural Catholics" who don't use contraception because it's a sin, but then have children out of wedlock.

Protestants who engage in the same culture/behaviors, but use contraception so that children don't result from the fornication.

The latter as they are committing TWO sins (fornication & contraception) while the former are committing only ONE.

Moses was unwanted to.

Um, no he wasn't.

He was born to two parents in wedlock; parents who wanted to raise him.

Unfortunately, he was a male Hebrew child at the wrong time, so his mother hid him in the rushes of the Nile river and basically left him in God's hands; his sister Miriam watched to see what would happen. An Egyptian princess found him, and found a Hebrew wet nurse to take care of him until he was weaned -- and who did the wet nurse turn out to be? His mother!

So saying he was "unwanted" is totally false.

What has a more devastating effect on the culture?

Fatherless kids or fading demographic replacement numbers?

You see what both are doing to families in the West.