[Catechism.

cc]
QuestionsandAnswersonCatholicMaritalSexualEthics
byRonaldL.ConteJr.
Tosubmitaquestion,contacttheauthor.

1.Whatdeterminesthemoralityofanact?
2.Whatdeterminesthemoralityofasexualact?
3.Whichtypesofsexualactsaremoralbetweenahusbandandwife?
4.Whichtypesofactsaremoralforahusbandandwifetouseasforeplay?
5.Isthemissionarypositiontheonlymoralsexualposition?
6.Ifthehusbandorwifeisnotfertile,duetoinjury,illness,oroldage,istheactofnaturalmaritalrelationsstill
moral?
7.Mayamarriedcoupleengageinnaturalintercourseduringthewife'spregnancy,orduringherperiod?
8.AredivorcedCatholicspermittedtoreceiveholyCommunion?
9.Whyistheuseofcontraceptionalwaysgravelyimmoral?
10.Mayamarriedcoupleusebarriercontraceptivestopreventdiseasetransmission?
11.Mayamarriedwomanusecontraceptivesforamedicalpurpose?
12.Mustaspouserefrainfromsexualrelationswithacontraceptingspouse?
13.Howisnaturalfamilyplanning(NFP)differentfromartificialbirthcontrol(ABC)?
14.Ispassionatekissingonlymoralwithinmarriage?

Foranindepthexplanationofmaritalsexualethicsaswellasthebasicprinciples
ofCatholicmoraltheology,seemybook:TheCatechismofCatholicEthics.

1.Whatdeterminesthemoralityofanact?

Inmoraltheology,anactistheknowingchoiceofahumanperson.Eachknowingchoiceisanact,
andeachactissubjecttotheeternalmorallaw.Someactsaremoral,andotheractsareimmoral.
Animmoralactisasinfulact.Sinisaknowinglychosenimmoralact.

Themoralityofanyactisbasedonthreefonts(orsources):

(1)theintentionorpurposeforwhichtheactisdone,
(2)theinherentmoralmeaningoftheactasdeterminedbyitsmoralobject,
(3)thecircumstancesoftheact,especiallytheconsequences.

To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be
good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad
consequences.Ifanyonefontisbad,theactisimmoral.Ifanactisimmoralduetoabadintention,
the same type of act may be moral with a good intention. If an act is immoral due to the
circumstances,thesametypeofactmaybemoralindifferentcircumstances.

Butwhenanacthasanevilmoralobject,theactisinherentlyimmoral,inotherwords,theactis
evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an
inherentmoralmeaning(themoralspecies)whichiscontrarytothemorallawofGod.Intrinsically
evilactsareneverjustifiedbyintentionorcircumstancesbecausethemoralspecies(thetypeofact
intermsofmorality)isinherentlyunjust.
PopeJohnPaulII:"Butthenegativemoralprecepts,thoseprohibitingcertainconcreteactionsor
kindsofbehaviorasintrinsicallyevil,donotallowforanylegitimateexception.Theydonotleave
room,inanymorallyacceptableway,forthe"creativity"ofanycontrarydeterminationwhatsoever.
Oncethemoralspeciesofanactionprohibitedbyauniversalruleisconcretelyrecognized,theonly
morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it
forbids."(VeritatisSplendor,n.67).

Intrinsicallyevilactsarealwaysimmoral,andareneverjustifiedbyintention,orbycircumstances,
orbyotherknowinglychosenacts.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

2.Whatdeterminesthemoralityofasexualact?

Asexualactisanydeliberateuseofthegenitalsexualfaculty.

Sexual acts are not exempt from the moral law. To be moral, each and every knowingly chosen
sexual act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object
mustbegood,andthegoodconsequencesmustoutweighanybadconsequences.

In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and
procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive,
procreative.Thedeprivationofanyoneormoreofthesemeaningsfromthemoralobjectcausesthe
sexualacttobeintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoral.

The natural sexual act is genitaltogenital intercourse between a man and a woman. This act is
unitive and procreative. Natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is called natural
maritalrelations.Onlynaturalmaritalrelationsismartialandunitiveandprocreative.

Theuseofcontraceptiondeprivestheactofnaturalintercourseoftheprocreativemeaning,causing
the sexual act to be nonprocreative. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always
gravelyimmoralbecauseitdeprivessexualrelationsofitsprocreativemeaning,whichisrequired
byGodforsexualactstobemoral.Therefore,naturalmaritalrelationsmustalwaysbeopentolife
(notcontracepted).

Anonmaritalsexualactisanytypeofsexualactoutsideofmarriage.Actsofadultery,premarital
sex,andmasturbationarenonmarital.Allnonmaritalsexualactsareintrinsicallyevilandalways
gravelyimmoralbecausetheseactslackthemaritalmeaning,whichisrequiredbyGodforsexual
actstobemoral.

Anunnaturalsexualactisanytypeofsexualactthatisnotunitiveandprocreative.Examplesof
unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e.
masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always
gravelyimmoralbecausetheseactslacktheunitiveandprocreativemeanings,whicharerequired
byGodforsexualactstobemoral.Theseactsarenotprocreativebecausetheyarenotthetypeof
act that is inherently directed at procreation. These acts are not truly unitive, even if there is a
certainmerephysicalunionofbodyparts,becausethisisnotthetypeofsexualunionintendedby
God for human persons. Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage
becausethemorallawrequireseachandeverysexualacttobenotonlymarital,butalsounitive
andprocreative.

Tobemoral,eachandeverysexualactmustbemaritalandunitiveandprocreative.Allnonmarital
sexualacts,allnonunitivesexualacts,andallnonprocreativesexualactsareintrinsicallyeviland
alwaysgravelyimmoral.Allsuchactshaveanevilmoralobject,andsotheyarenotjustifiedby
intention,orbycircumstances,orbyotheracts.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

3.Whichtypesofsexualactsaremoralbetweenahusbandandwife?

Theonlymoralsexualactisnaturalmaritalrelationsopentolife.TheMagisteriumoftheCatholic
Churchteachesthateachandeverysexualactmustbemaritalandunitiveandprocreative.

PopePaulVI:"TheChurch,nevertheless,inurgingmentotheobservanceofthepreceptsofthe
naturallaw,whichitinterpretsbyitsconstantdoctrine,teachesthateachandeverymaritalact
must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular
doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable
connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the
unitivesignificanceandtheprocreativesignificancewhicharebothinherenttothemarriageact.

"Thereasonisthatthefundamentalnatureofthemarriageact,whileunitinghusbandandwifein
theclosestintimacy,alsorendersthemcapableofgeneratingnewlifeandthisasaresultoflaws
written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the
unitiveandtheprocreative,ispreserved,theuseofmarriagefullyretainsitssenseoftruemutual
love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called."
(HumanaeVitae,n.1112).

Only natural marital relations (natural genitaltogenital intercourse) open to life has all three
meanings: marital, unitive, and procreative. If a husband or wife are infertile, due to old age, or
injury, or illness, the natural marital act remains moral because it is still the type of act which is
inherently directed toward procreation (even if procreation is not attained). The essential moral
nature of any act is determined by its inherent ordering toward its moral object, not by the
attainmentofthemoralobject.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]
4.Whichtypesofactsaremoralforahusbandandwifetouseasforeplay?

Actsusedforthepurposeofforeplayarenotexemptfromthemorallaw.Someactsofforeplayare
moral, and other acts of foreplay are immoral. Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital
relations. But the end does not justify the means. Therefore, the acts used as foreplay are not
justifiedmerelybybeingatypeofforeplay.

A knowingly chosen act is moral if it has three good fonts of morality (intention, moral object,
circumstances).Aknowinglychosenactisimmoralifithasoneormorebadfontsofmorality.In
ordertobemoral,eachactofforeplaymusthavethreegoodfontsofmorality.(Afontofmorality
isasourceorbasisformorality.)

Theintentiontouseanactasatypeofforeplay,i.e.inordertopreparefornaturalmaritalrelations,
isnotsufficienttomaketheactmoral.Thecircumstancethatanactoccursinconnectionwith(in
thecontextof)naturalmaritalrelationsisnotsufficienttomaketheactmoral.Inordertobemoral,
eachandeveryknowinglychosenactmusthaveagoodintention,andagoodmoralobject,andthe
good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences in the circumstances. The marital
bedroomisnotexemptfromthemorallaw.

All three fonts of morality must be good for any act to be moral. The context of an act (its
circumstances) and the intention of the person who acts are not sufficient to cause the act to be
moral.

"Itisthereforeanerrortojudgethemoralityofhumanactsbyconsideringonlytheintentionthat
inspiresthemorthecircumstances(environment,socialpressure,duressoremergency,etc.)which
supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances
andintentions,arealwaysgravelyillicitbyreasonoftheirobjectsuchasblasphemyandperjury,
murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (Catechism of the
CatholicChurch,n.1756).

The object (or moral object) of an act is the end in terms of morality toward which the act is
inherently directed. When the moral object is evil, the act is in and of itself immoral it is an
intrinsicallyevilact.Allintrinsicallyevilactsareinherentlyorderedtowardanevilmoralobject.
Intrinsicallyevilactsareneverjustifiedbyintentionorbycircumstancesbecausetheverynatureof
theactiscontrarytotheLawofGod(themorallaw).

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act,
intrinsicallyevilbyvirtueofitsobject,intoanact'subjectively'goodordefensibleasachoice."
(VeritatisSplendor,n.81).

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
whichisintrinsicallyillicit,sinceitiscontrarytotheLawofGodwhichiswrittenineveryhuman
heart,knowablebyreasonitself,andproclaimedbytheChurch."(EvangeliumVitae,n.62).

Unnatural sexual acts (oral sex, anal sex, and manipulative sex, i.e. masturbation of self or of
another) are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts are not unitive and
procreative.Thedeprivationofthemaritalorunitiveorprocreativemeaningfromanysexualact
causesthemoralobjecttobeevil,andtheactitselftobeinherentlyimmoral.Inordertohavea
good moral object, each and every sexual act must be not only marital, but also unitive, and
procreative.Anysexualactthatisnonmarital,ornonunitive,ornonprocreativeisanintrinsically
evilact.

PopePaulVI:"TheChurch,nevertheless,inurgingmentotheobservanceofthepreceptsofthe
naturallaw,whichitinterpretsbyitsconstantdoctrine,teachesthateachandeverymaritalact
must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular
doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable
connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the
unitivesignificanceandtheprocreativesignificancewhicharebothinherenttothemarriage
act."(HumanaeVitae,n.1112.)

Unnaturalsexualactsareneverjustifiedbytheintention(orpurpose)tousetheseactsasatypeof
foreplay,norbythecircumstancethattheseactsoccurinthecontextofnaturalmaritalrelations.
Allunnaturalsexualactsareintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoralduetothedeprivationof
theunitiveandprocreativemeaningsfromthemoralobject.

Each knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts in order to be moral. When an act is
intrinsicallyevil,ithasanevilmoralobject,andthereforeabadfontofmorality.Onebadfontis
sufficienttocauseanacttobeasin.Goodintentionsanddirecircumstancescanneverjustifyan
actthatisintrinsicallyevil.

Furthermore,eachactmuststandonitsownastoitsmorality.Thethreefontswhichapplytoany
actarethosewhichspringupfromthatsameact.Oneactcannotborrowthefontsofmoralityfrom
anotheract.Anintrinsicallyevilactisneverjustifiedbybeingdonebefore,during,orafteranother
actbecauseintrinsicallyevilactsareinherentlyimmoral.Therefore,unnaturalsexualactsarenever
justified by being done before, during, or after another act, even the good act of natural marital
relations.

Unnaturalsexualactswhichlackclimaxaresometimescalled'stimulation'(oralstimulation,anal
stimulation,manualstimulation).Butthelackofsexualclimaxdoesnotchangethemoralobject
fromeviltogood.Thesesexualactsremaindeprivedoftheunitiveandprocreativemeanings,and
therefore they remain intrinsically evil, regardless of intention or circumstance. Other acts of
foreplay,thosewhicharenotunnaturalsexualacts,generallydonothaveanevilmoralobjectand
sotheyarenotintrinsicallyevil.

Isalltouchingofthegenitalsprohibitedtospouses?

No.However,touchingthegenitalsofyourself,orofyourspouse,inthesameorsimilarmanneras
wouldbedoneinmasturbation(i.e.manipulativesexualacts)isimmoral.Anytypeofmasturbatory
touchingisimmoral(regardlessofwhetherorwhensexualclimaxoccurs)becauseitisasexualact
thatisnonunitiveandnonprocreative.
Anyclaimaboutthemoralityofanactwhich"dissociatesthemoralactfromthebodilydimensions
ofitsexerciseiscontrarytotheteachingofScriptureandTradition."(PopeJohnPaulII,Veritatis
Splendor,n.49.)Inotherwords,theconcreteact(thetypeofbehavior)cannotbeseparatedfromits
inherent moral meaning. An intrinsically evil act cannot become moral merely because the will
directstheacttowardaparticularpurpose.Certainkindsofactsareinherentlyimmoralbythevery
nature of the act. And so, masturbatory touching of yourself or of your spouse does not become
moralbybeingdonewithinmarriage,norbybeingdonetoprepareforthemaritalact.Thebodily
act itself cannot be dissociated from its inherent moral meaning. So when an act, such as
masturbation, is intrinsically evil, it can never become moral, not with any intention, not in any
circumstances,notwithinmarriage,notinassociationwiththemaritalsexualact.

Whichactsofforeplayaremoral?

Anyactismoraliftheintentionandthemoralobjectarebothgood,andifthegoodconsequences
of the act outweigh any bad consequences. If the intention and consequences are good, then the
moralityofanactofforeplaywilldependonthemoralobject.Anysexualactwhichisnonmarital,
ornonunitive,ornonprocreativeisintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoral,evenifusedfor
the purpose of foreplay, due to the deprivation in the moral object of the marital or unitive or
procreativemeanings.However,actssuchasahusbandkissingandcaressinghiswife'sbreasts,ora
wifekissingandembracingherhusbandpassionately,arenotsexualactsperse,andsotheseacts
aregenerallymoralanddonotneedtobeunitiveandprocreative.

In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive and procreative. Nonunitive or
nonprocreative sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) are intrinsically evil, and do not become
moralbybeingusedasatypeofforeplay,norbyoccurringbefore,during,orafteranactofnatural
maritalrelations.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

5.Isthemissionarypositiontheonlymoralsexualposition?

No. Any sexual position of natural genitaltogenital intercourse between a husband and wife
thereby retains the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings, and so would have a good moral
object.Buttobemoral,eachandeveryknowinglychosenact,inadditiontohavingagoodmoral
object, must also have good intention, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad
consequences.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

6.Ifthehusbandorwifeisnotfertile,duetoinjury,illness,oroldage,istheactofnatural
maritalrelationsstillmoral?
Yes,naturalintercourseisstillmoral,evenifthehusbandorwifeisnotfertileduetoinjury,illness,
oroldage.

PopePaulVI:"Thesexualactivity,inwhichhusbandandwifeareintimatelyandchastelyunited
withoneanother,throughwhichhumanlifeistransmitted,is,astherecentCouncilrecalled,'noble
andworthy.'Itdoesnot,moreover,ceasetobelegitimateevenwhen,forreasonsindependentof
theirwill,itisforeseentobeinfertile.Foritsnaturaladaptationtotheexpressionandstrengthening
oftheunionofhusbandandwifeisnottherebysuppressed.Thefactis,asexperienceshows,that
newlifeisnottheresultofeachandeveryactofsexualintercourse.Godhaswiselyorderedlaws
of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally
spacedthroughtheinherentoperationoftheselaws."(HumanaeVitae,n.11.)

Inordertobemoral,eachandeverysexualactmustbemaritalandunitiveandprocreative.Thisis
the threefold object of every moral sexual act. This natural sexual act is procreative precisely
because it is inherently directed toward procreation. In other words, it is the type of act that is
intrinsicallyorderedtowardthegoodendofcreatingnewlife.Butevenwhenthisactdoesnotor
cannotachievethisgoodend(itsmoralobject),theactremainsinherentlyorderedtowardthatsame
end,andsoitretainsthatgood,theprocreativemeaning,initsmoralobject.Anactdoesnothave
toachieveitsmoralobjecttobeinherentlyorderedtowarditsmoralobject.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

7.Mayamarriedcoupleengageinnaturalintercourseduringthewife'spregnancy,orduring
herperiod?

Yes,naturalintercourseispermittedbetweenahusbandandwifeduringthosetimes.

Althoughthenaturalmaritalactdoesnotresultinanewconceptionduringpregnancy,theactitself
isstillinherentlydirectedtowardprocreation.Naturalintercourseisthetypeofsexualactthatis
inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive
meanings. And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to
pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's
period.First,someaskbecauseSt.ThomasAquinaswrotethatmaritalrelationsisnotmoralduring
menstruation.However,hisopinionwasbasedonamisunderstandingaboutreproductivebiology,
inthathethoughtharmwouldresulttotheoffspring.Giventhemedicalknowledgethatnosuch
harmresultstotheoffspringfrommaritalrelationsduringmenstruation,hisopiniononthispointis
inerror.

Second,someaskbecausetheymistakenlythinkthatconceptioncannotoccurasaresultofsexual
relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if
procreationcannotpossiblyresult.Butaslongasthesexualactisthetypeofactinherentlydirected
at procreation, i.e. natural genitaltogenital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning
intended by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral
object,nottheattainmentofthemoralobject,thatcausesanacttobeeithergood,orintrinsically
evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward
procreation,andsoitretainsitsproperprocreativemeaning.Naturalmaritalrelationsismoral,even
when the husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act
remains inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the
marital,unitive,andprocreativemeanings.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

8.AredivorcedCatholicspermittedtoreceiveholyCommunion?

A divorced Catholic who is not remarried can usually receive holy Communion. Divorce is not
intrinsically evil, and so it is not necessarily a sin. But divorce can sometimes be a serious sin,
depending on the intention and the circumstances. A divorced Catholic should consult with his
pastororhisconfessoraboutwhetherornothehassinnedbygettingadivorce.

DivorcedandremarriedCatholicsarenotallowedtoreceiveCommunionbecausetheyarehaving
sexualrelationswithapersontowhomtheyarenotmarriedintheeyesofGodandtheChurch.If
thepriormarriagewasthetrueSacramentofMarriage,thenthedivorcecannotbreakthebondof
the Sacrament. The couple remains married to each other in the eyes of God and the Church. So
whenthatpersonremarries,heorsheishavingsexualrelationsoutsideofavalidmarriage.

Divorced and remarried Catholics can sometimes obtain an annulment, if the previous marriage
was, for some reason, not the true Sacrament. Another option is for them to cease from sexual
relations,butstaytogetherforthesakeofthechildren.Athirdoptionisforthemtoseparate.After
any of these three options, with confession and permission from the Church, they may resume
receivingholyCommunion.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

9.Whyistheuseofcontraceptionalwaysgravelyimmoral?

Contraceptiondeprivesthesexualactofitsprocreativemeaning,therebycausingthecontracepted
sexualacttobeintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoral.Whenamanandwomanchooseto
deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning, they are choosing to reject one of the inherent
meanings of sexuality in the plan of God for human nature. This rejection is gravely immoral
because "the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct
violationofthisorderisobjectivelyserious."(SacredCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith,
PersonaHumana,X.)
PopePaulVI:"TheChurch,nevertheless,inurgingmentotheobservanceofthepreceptsofthe
naturallaw,whichitinterpretsbyitsconstantdoctrine,teachesthateachandeverymaritalactmust
ofnecessityretainitsintrinsicrelationshiptotheprocreationofhumanlife."(HumanaeVitae,n.
1112.)

Themoralobjectofanactofnaturalmaritalrelationsisthreefold:marital,unitive,procreative.The
deprivationofanyoneormoreofthesethreemeaningsfromasexualactcausesthemoralobjectto
be evil, and the act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Premarital sex is
intrinsicallyevilbecauseitisnonmarital.Unnaturalsexualactsareintrinsicallyevilbecausethey
arenonunitiveandnonprocreative.Contraceptedactsofnaturalintercourseareintrinsicallyevil
becausetheyarenonprocreative.

PopePiusXI:"Butnoreason,howevergrave,maybeputforwardbywhichanythingintrinsically
againstnaturemaybecomeconformabletonatureandmorallygood.Since,therefore,theconjugal
act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it,
deliberatelyfrustrateitsnaturalpowerandpurpose,sinagainstnatureandcommitadeedwhichis
shamefulandintrinsicallyvicious."(CastiConnubii,n.54.)

ContraceptionisintrinsicallyagainstthedesignforhumannaturechosenbyGod,wherebysexual
relations is ordered toward procreation, through the union of man and woman in marriage. The
deliberatedeprivationoftheprocreativemeaningfromsexualrelationsiscontrarytonaturallaw,
contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, and intrinsically immoral. (The phrase
'intrinsically vicious' is a translation of the Latin text 'intrinsece inhonestum,' which is perhaps
bettertranslatedas'intrinsicallyimmoral'.)

Pope John Paul II: "When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two
meaningsthatGodtheCreatorhasinscribedinthebeingofmanandwomanandinthedynamism
oftheirsexualcommunion,theyactasarbitersofthedivineplanandtheymanipulateanddegrade
humansexualityandwithitthemselvesandtheirmarriedpartnerbyalteringitsvalueoftotal
selfgiving.Thustheinnatelanguagethatexpressesthetotalreciprocalselfgivingofhusbandand
wifeisoverlaid,throughcontraception,byanobjectivelycontradictorylanguage,namely,thatof
notgivingoneselftotallytotheother.Thisleadsnotonlytoapositiverefusaltobeopentolifebut
also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in
personaltotality."(FamiliarisConsortio,n.32.)

ThetwomeaningsinscribedbyGodinthebeingofmanandwoman,foruseonlywithinmarriage,
aretheunitiveandprocreativemeanings.Inordertobemoral,eachandeverymaritalsexualact
must be unitive and procreative. The use of contraception separates the unitive and procreative
meanings, depriving the sexual act of a good intended by God in His divine plan. The use of
contraceptionclosesthesexualacttolife,andisthereforeimmoral.

PopeJohnPaulII,writingaboutPopePaulVI'sencyclicalHumanaeVitae:"Andheconcludedby
reemphasizingthattheremustbeexcludedasintrinsicallyimmoral'everyactionwhich,eitherin
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.' "
(FamiliarisConsortio,n.32,quotingHumanaeVitae,n.14.)

All contraceptive acts deliberately render the use of the sexual faculty nonprocreative.
Contraceptiveactsdone"inanticipationoftheconjugalact"wouldincludetakingacontraceptive
pill or applying a contraceptive barrier before sexual relations. Contraceptive acts done in the
"accomplishment"ofthesexualactwouldincludethewithdrawalmethodofcontraception,andany
inherently nonprocreative sexual act (unnatural sexual acts). Contraceptive acts done "in the
developmentofits[theconjugalact's]naturalconsequences"wouldincludemethodsthatinterfere
withconceptionafterintercourse,suchasspermicidesandpillsthatpreventovulation.

Sincetheuseofcontraceptionisintrinsicallyevil,nointentionandnocircumstancecanjustifyits
use. Intrinsically evil are always immoral, even with good intentions, even in dire circumstances
(Veritatis Splendor, n. 81). The use of contraception, even by married persons, is always gravely
immoral.

Pope Paul VI: "From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of
transmittinglife,asifitwerewhollyuptothemtodecidewhatistherightcoursetofollow.Onthe
contrary,theyareboundtoensurethatwhattheydocorrespondstothewillofGodtheCreator.The
verynatureofmarriageanditsusemakesHiswillclear,whiletheconstantteachingoftheChurch
spellsitout."(HumanaeVitae,n.10.)

Theonlymoralsexualactisnaturalmaritalrelationsopentolife.Theuseofcontraceptionisan
objective mortal sin because it closes the sexual act to life. The use of contraception with full
knowledgethattheactisgravelyimmoral,andwithfulldeliberation,isanactualmortalsin.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

10.Mayamarriedcoupleusebarriercontraceptivestopreventdiseasetransmission?

No. The use of contraception deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning and is therefore
intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. When an act is intrinsically evil, neither a good
intention,nordirecircumstances,cancausetheacttobecomemoral.

CatechismoftheCatholicChurch:"Legitimateintentionsonthepartofthespousesdonotjustify
recoursetomorallyunacceptablemeans(forexample,directsterilizationorcontraception)."(CCC,
n.2399)

The end does not justify the means. And so the intended end of preventing disease transmission
does not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means, contraception. Acts which are not
intrinsically evil may be moral, depending on intention and circumstances. But acts which are
intrinsicallyevilarealwaysimmoral,regardlessofintentionandcircumstances.

PopeJohnPaulII:"Butthenegativemoralprecepts,thoseprohibitingcertainconcreteactionsor
kindsofbehaviorasintrinsicallyevil,donotallowforanylegitimateexception.Theydonotleave
room,inanymorallyacceptableway,forthe'creativity'ofanycontrarydeterminationwhatsoever.
Oncethemoralspeciesofanactionprohibitedbyauniversalruleisconcretelyrecognized,theonly
morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it
forbids."(VeritatisSplendor,n.67.)

The moral species is the type of act in terms of morality it is the essential nature of the act
according to the eternal moral law of God. Contraception is always gravely illicit because it is a
typeofactthatisinherentlycontrarytothelawofGodonhumansexuality.Thedeprivationofthe
procreativemeaningcausesthemoralobjectofcontraceptedsexualactstobeevil,andtheactof
using contraception to be, in and of itself, gravely illicit. Even good intentions and dire
circumstancescannotcauseaninherentlyillicitacttobecomemoralorjustifiable.

TheCatechismoftheCatholicChurch:"Itisthereforeanerrortojudgethemoralityofhumanacts
by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social
pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of
themselves,independentlyofcircumstancesandintentions,arealwaysgravelyillicitbyreasonof
theirobjectsuchasblasphemyandperjury,murderandadultery.Onemaynotdoevilsothatgood
mayresultfromit."(CCC,n.1756.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
whichisintrinsicallyillicit,sinceitiscontrarytotheLawofGodwhichiswrittenineveryhuman
heart,knowablebyreasonitself,andproclaimedbytheChurch."(EvangeliumVitae,n.62.)

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

11.Mayamarriedwomanusecontraceptivesforamedicalpurpose?

Therearethreefonts(orsources)ofmorality.

CatechismoftheCatholicChurch:"Themoralityofhumanactsdependson:theobjectchosenthe
end in view or the intention the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the
circumstances make up the 'sources,' or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts."
(CCC,n.1750.)

CompendiumoftheCatechism:"Themoralityofhumanactsdependsonthreesources:theobject
chosen,eitheratrueorapparentgoodtheintentionofthesubjectwhoacts,thatis,thepurposefor
which the subject performs the act and the circumstances of the act, which include its
consequences."(CompendiumoftheCCC,n.367.)

USCCBCatechism:"Everymoralactconsistsofthreeelements:theobjectiveact(whatwedo),the
subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in
which we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good the objective act, the subjective
intention, and the circumstances in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic
CatechismforAdults,U.S.ConferenceofCatholicBishops,p.311312.)
Thethreefontsofmoralitycanbesummarizedasfollows:

[1]theintentionorpurposeofthepersonwhochoosestheact
[2]themoralobject,whichdeterminestheintrinsicmoralmeaningoftheact
[3]thecircumstances,especiallytheconsequences,ofthechosenact

Whenthemoralobjectisevil,theactisintrinsicallyevilandalwaysimmoral.Agoodintentionand
good consequences cannot change the moral object of the act from evil to good. All three fonts
mustbegoodfortheknowinglychosenacttobemoral.Wheneveranyoneormorefontsisbad,the
actisimmoral(sinful).Anactwithanevilmoralobjectdoesnotbecomemoralbybeingdonewith
agoodintention(orpurpose),orindifficultcircumstances.

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act,
intrinsicallyevilbyvirtueofitsobject,intoanact'subjectively'goodordefensibleasachoice."
(VeritatisSplendor,n.81.)

Amedicalpurpose(firstfont)cannottransformthemoralobject(secondfont)oftheactofusing
contraception from an evil to good. The use of contraception deprives the sexual act of its
procreativemeaning,makingthemoralobjectandtheintrinsicmoralmeaningoftheactevil.When
theactofusingcontraceptionisdoneforagoodpurpose(orintention),themoralobjectoftheact
remains evil. Intentions and circumstances cannot change the moral object. The use of
contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even when used for a medical
purpose,orindirecircumstances.

Agoodenddoesnotjustifyanintrinsicallyevilmeans.

[Romans]
{3:8}Andshouldwenotdoevil,sothatgoodmayresult?Forsowehavebeenslandered,andso
somehaveclaimedwesaidtheircondemnationisjust.

SacredCongregationfortheDoctrineoftheFaith:"Itisneverpermittedtodosomethingwhichis
intrinsicallyillicit,noteveninviewofagoodresult:theenddoesnotjustifythemeans."(Dignitas
Personae,n.21.)

PopeJohnPaulII:"theendneverjustifiesthemeans."(MessagefortheCelebrationoftheWorld
DayofPeace,1January2004,n.8.)

PontificalCouncilfortheFamily:"onecannotdoevilforagoodend.Theenddoesnotjustify
themeans."(CardinalAlfonsoLpezTrujillo,PontificalCouncilfortheFamily,3.c.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: " 'An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good
intention'(cf.St.ThomasAquinas,Dec.praec.6).Theenddoesnotjustifythemeans."(CCC,n.
1759innerquotefromSt.ThomasAquinas,OntheTenCommandments.)
Theuseofanintrinsicallyevilmeansisneverjustifiedbyagoodpurpose(i.e.agoodintention).
The use of contraception is intrinsically evil because it deprives the sexual act of its procreative
meaning. A medical purpose (the intended end) can never justify the use of an intrinsically evil
meanstoachievethatend.

BothPopePaulVIandPopeJohnPaulIItaughtthattheuseofcontraceptionisintrinsicallyevil
and always gravely immoral, "whether as an end or as a means." (Familiaris Consortio, n. 32,
quotingHumanaeVitae,n.14.)

A contraceptive act is an end when the purpose (the intention or intended end) is to prevent
conception.Butevenifthecontraceptiveisusedasameanstoanotherend,suchaswhenchemical
contraceptives are used to treat a medical problem, or when a barrier method is used to prevent
diseasetransmission,theuseofcontraceptionremainsintrinsicallyevil.Theintendedendisinthe
firstfonttheeffects(consequences)areinthethirdfont.Buttheactofusingcontraceptionremains
inherentlydirectedatanevilmoralobject:thedeprivationoftheprocreativemeaningfromasexual
act. A good intended end and good anticipated consequences cannot change the inherent moral
meaningoftheactitself.Contraceptiveactsareinherentlyimmoral.

Cananunmarriedwoman,whoisnotsexuallyactive,usethecontraceptivepillforamedical
purpose?

Yes.Whenthecontraceptivepill(thebirthcontrolpill)istakenbyawomanwhoisnotsexually
active,thepilldoesnotdeprivesexualactsoftheprocreativemeaning,becausetherearenosexual
acts.Therefore,themoralobjectisnotevil,andtheactisnotintrinsicallyevil.Whenanactisnot
intrinsicallyevil,themoralityoftheactthendependsontheothertwofontsofmorality,intention
and circumstances. So if the intention is good, and if the good consequences of taking the pill
outweighthebadconsequences,thentheactismoral.

Can a married woman use the contraceptive pill for a medical purpose, while refraining
entirelyfromsexualrelations?

Yes.Butwhenawomanismarried,shemusthaveagravereasontorefrainfrommaritalrelations
with her husband for an extended period of time. The husband and wife have a moral obligation
(calledthemarriagedebt)tohavenaturalmaritalrelationswitheachother.

[1Corinthians]
{7:3} A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife, and a wife should also act similarly
towardherhusband.
{7:4}Itisnotthewife,butthehusband,whohaspoweroverherbody.But,similarlyalso,itisnot
thehusband,butthewife,whohaspoweroverhisbody.
{7:5}So,donotfailinyourobligationstooneanother,exceptperhapsbyconsent,foralimited
time,sothatyoumayemptyyourselvesforprayer.Andthen,returntogetheragain,lestSatantempt
youbymeansofyourabstinence.

Onlyforagravereasoncouldamarriedwomandenyherhusbandmaritalrelationsforanextended
time.

If a wife has a serious medical problem, which can only be effectively treated with the
contraceptivepill,thenshemighttakethecontraceptivepillwhilerefrainingfrommaritalrelations
withherhusband.Aslongassheisnotsexuallyactivewhiletakingthepill,thesexualactisnot
deprivedoftheprocreativemeaning,andsosheavoidscommittinganintrinsicallyevilact.

Canamarriedwomanusethecontraceptivepillforamedicalpurpose,andalsousenatural
familyplanning(NFP)sothatshemaycontinuetohavesexualrelationswithherhusband?

No. Natural family planning is moral because it does not deprive sexual acts of the procreative
meaning. NFP allows natural marital relations to retain the unitive, procreative, and marital
meaningsinthemoralobject.However,theuseofthecontraceptivepilldoesdeprivesexualactsof
theprocreativemeaning.AndtheuseofNFP,whilealsousingacontraceptive,doesnotremedy
thatdeprivation.Inotherwords,ifyoutrytocombineacontraceptivewithnaturalfamilyplanning,
thesexualactsremaindeprivedoftheprocreativemeaningbythecontraceptive,andsotheuseof
thecontraceptionremainsintrinsicallyevil.

NFP is based on refraining from marital relations during certain times (e.g. times of increased
fertilityifthecouplewishestoavoidconception),andengaginginnaturalmaritalrelationsopento
lifeduringothertimes.Theuseofartificialcontraceptioncausesanyactsofmaritalrelationstobe
closedtolife,therebymakingtheattempttousenaturalfamilyplanningnottrulynatural.NFPis
effectivelynullifiedwheneverthecoupleusesanymethodofcontraceptionalongwithamethodof
naturalfamilyplanning.

DoesHumanaeVitaepermittheuseofcontraception,ifitisatherapeuticmeansorifitisfor
atherapeuticpurpose?

No.Thepassagethatisusuallycitedtosupportthisclaimisthefollowing:

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those
therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to
procreation,whichmaybeforeseen,shouldresulttherefrom,providedsuchimpedimentisnot,for
whatevermotive,directlywilled."(HumanaeVitae,n.15).

The above passage refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a woman has a hysterectomy in
ordertotreatamedicaldisorder,withtheresultisthatsheissterile.Insuchacase,thetherapeutic
meansisnotintrinsicallyevil,andsoitismorallypermissible,evenwhensterilityisforeseenasan
unintendedconsequence.Butthesamepassagecannotbeappliedtocontraceptionbecausetheuse
ofcontraceptionisintrinsicallyevil.ThemoralteachingoftheChurchdoesnotpermittheuseofan
intrinsicallyevilmeanstoachieveagoodend.Theendneverjustifiesthemeans.

Noticethatthelastportionoftheabovequoteexcludesasimmoralthechoiceofan"impedimentto
procreation,"ifitis,"forwhatevermotive,directlywilled."Soevenwhenthemotive(thepurpose
orintendedend)istherapeutic,ifthemeansisadirectlywilledactwhichimpedesprocreation(e.g.
contraception,ordirectsterilization),thentheactismorallyillicit.Thisdistinctionisimportanttoa
correct understanding of the Church's teaching. Intrinsically evil acts are never moral for any
motiveorpurposewhatsoever,evenatherapeuticmotive(ormedicalpurpose).Whatispermissible
isanact,suchasamedicalintervention(e.g.removingacancerousuterus),whichisinitselfmoral
andthereforenotintrinsicallyevil,andwhichhastheunintendedeffectofsterilization.

Theimpedingofprocreationisanevilmoralobject,andthedeliberatechoiceofanyactdirected
towardthatendisaninherentlyimmoralact.Intrinsicallyevilactsarealwaysimmoral.

There are three fonts of morality: "the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for
whichthesubjectperformstheact,"themoralobject,andthecircumstances.(Compendiumofthe
CCC,n.367.)Theintentionorpurposecanneverjustifyanactwithanevilmoralobjectsuchacts
areintrinsicallyevilandalwaysimmoral.

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
whichisintrinsicallyillicit,sinceitiscontrarytotheLawofGodwhichiswrittenineveryhuman
heart,knowablebyreasonitself,andproclaimedbytheChurch."(EvangeliumVitae,n.62.)

Is the use of contraception for medical purposes, by a married sexually active woman,
justifiedbytheprincipleofdoubleeffect?

No. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The principle of
double effect never justifies an intrinsically evil act. Nothing can justify an intrinsically evil act
becausesuchanactis,inandofitself,morallyillicit.

"PrincipleofDoubleEffect
"An action that is good in itself that has two effectsan intended and otherwise not reasonably
attainablegoodeffect,andanunintendedyetforeseenevileffectislicit,providedthereisadue
proportionbetweentheintendedgoodandthepermittedevil.

"Theobjectoftheactmustnotbeintrinsicallycontradictorytoone'sfundamentalcommitmentto
Godandneighbor(includingoneself),thatis,itmustbeagoodactionjudgedbyitsmoralobject
(inotherwords,theactionmustnotbeintrinsicallyevil)."
AscensionHealth,HealthcareEthics,KeyEthicalPrinciples

Theprincipleofdoubleeffectmayjustifyanactonlyiftheactis'goodinitself,'inotherwords,
only if the act is not intrinsically evil. Whether an act is 'good in itself' or 'evil in itself' is
determinedbyitsmoralobject.This'object'istheendintermsofmoralitytowardwhichtheact
itselfisinherentlydirected(orintrinsicallyordered).Whenanactisinherentlydirectedtowarda
morallyevilend,thenthatactisinherentlyevil.Sothemoralobjectdeterminestheessentialmoral
nature(orinherentmoralmeaning)oftheact,inandofitself,apartfromintention(orpurpose)and
circumstances(includingconsequences).

Pope John Paul II: "These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed
'intrinsicallyevil'(intrinsecemalum):theyaresuchalwaysandperse,inotherwords,onaccount
of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the
circumstances.Consequently,withoutintheleastdenyingtheinfluenceonmoralityexercisedby
circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that 'there exist acts which per se
andinthemselves,independentlyofcircumstances,arealwaysseriouslywrongbyreasonoftheir
object'."(VeritatisSplendor,n.80innerquotefromReconciliationandPenance,n.17.)

Furthermore, the type of contraception which is used for medical purposes (e.g. to control an
irregularperiodwithexcessivebleeding)isabortifacientcontraception.Thistypeofcontraception
can prevent conception by preventing ovulation. But it can also prevent the implantation of a
conceivedprenatal,causingthedeathofthatveryyounghumanperson.

Abortifacientcontraceptionhastwoevilmoralobjects,todeprivethesexualactoftheprocreative
meaning,andtodeprivetheinnocentprenataloflife.Bothmoralobjectsareintrinsicallyeviland
alwaysgravelyimmoral.Theevilofabortionisworsethantheevilofcontraception.Intrinsically
evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances. Therefore, under the second font of
morality,theactisagravesin.

Inaddition,theharmdonebytheabortifacientactionofthepill,especiallyifthewomanisonthe
pillforanextendedperiodoftimesothatanumberofinnocentprenatalsarekilled,faroutweighs
the good done by the medical effects of that same pill (regulating the woman's cycle so as to
provide some therapeutic benefit). In the third font of circumstances, the harm done by killing
innocentprenatalsgravelyoutweighsthemedicalbenefitsoftheuse.Therefore,underthethirdfont
ofmorality,theactisagravesin.

Under the first font of intention, the intended end of obtaining the medical benefits of the
contraceptivepill(asatherapeuticintervention)isgood.However,aperson'sintentionincludesnot
only the intended end, but also the intended means. In this case, the woman intends a good end
(health),butbyameansthatisintrinsicallyevil.Theintentiontouseanintrinsicallyevilactasa
meanstoagoodendisanevilintention.Therefore,underthefirstfontofmorality,theintentionto
useanabortifacientcontraceptionwhileremainingsexuallyactiveisanevilintention,despitethe
goodintendedend.For,evenasconcernsintention,agoodendneverjustifiesanevilmeans.

Insummary,theprincipleofdoubleeffectonlyjustifiesanactiftheacthasagoodintention,and
the act is not intrinsically evil, and the bad consequences (effects) do not outweigh the good
consequences(effects).Anactthatisjustifiedbytheprincipleofdoubleeffectisanactthathas
threegoodfonts.Butwhenabortifacientcontraceptionisusedforamedical(therapeutic)purpose,
allthreefontsofmoralityarebad.Evenonebadfontissufficienttocauseanyacttobeasin.In
this case, all three fonts are gravely immoral. Therefore, it is in no way justifiable for a sexually
activewomantouseabortifacientcontraceptionforamedicalpurpose.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

12.Mustaspouserefrainfromsexualrelationswithacontraceptingspouse?
Yes.Theuseofcontraceptionisintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoralbecauseitdeprives
the sexual act of the procreative meaning. Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by intention or
circumstances.Soeveniftheintentionsoftheonespousearegood,andthecircumstancesarevery
difficult,heorshecannotmorallychoosetoengageinsexualrelationswithacontraceptingspouse.
Todosowouldbeanobjectivemortalsin.

Inonesense,onlythecontraceptingspouseis'using'thecontraception(takingthepill,orusinga
condom, etc.). But in another sense, both spouses are contracepting because both are knowingly
choosingtoengageincontraceptedsexualrelations.The'noncontracepting'spouseisdeliberately
choosing to participate in contracepted sexual relations, and so he or she is participating in the
deprivationoftheprocreativemeaningfromthemaritalact.Thelackofanintentiontocontracept
on the part of the one spouse does not change the moral object of the act that he or she has
deliberatelychosen.

Moreover, if the wife is using an abortifacient contraceptive, such as the birth control pill, both
spouses are participating in the sin of direct abortion as well as the sin of contraception. The
husband cannot justify continuing to have sexual relations with his wife if he knows that she is
usinganabortifacientcontraceptive.Inthesecondfont,bothcontraceptionandabortionhaveevil
moralobjects,andsotheyareintrinsicallyevilandalwaysgravelyimmoral.Inthethirdfont,the
bad consequences of the deaths of prenatal children (due to the abortifacient action of the
contraceptives)faroutweighsanygoodconsequences.Thisbadconsequencesisparticularlygrave
becausethehumanpersonswhoarekilledareparticularlyinnocentanddefenseless,andbecause
thekillingcontinuestooccurasthemarriedcouplecontinuetohavesexualrelationswhileusing
abortifacientcontraception.

Itisnotpossibletoredefinewhatconstitutescontraception,orwhatconstitutesabortion,basedon
intention and circumstances, so as to somehow permit continued sexual relations while using
contraception,orabortifacientcontraception.Intrinsicallyevilactsarenotdefinedbyintentionor
circumstancesbecauseintrinsicallyevilactsareindependentofintentionandcircumstances.

TheCatechismoftheCatholicChurch:"Itisthereforeanerrortojudgethemoralityofhumanacts
by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social
pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of
themselves,independentlyofcircumstancesandintentions,arealwaysgravelyillicitbyreasonof
theirobjectsuchasblasphemyandperjury,murderandadultery.Onemaynotdoevilsothatgood
mayresultfromit."(CCC,n.1756.)

If an intrinsically evil act were defined by intention or circumstances, then an act would only be
intrinsically evil if the act were accompanied by a bad intention, or if the bad consequences
outweighedthegoodconsequences.Theresultofthisapproachwouldbetojustifyanintrinsically
evilactbybasingthemoraldefinition(or'moralspecies')oftheactonintentionandcircumstances,
rather than on the moral object. All manner of intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts would
thenbesaidtobejustifiedbybeingredefined,asiftheywereadifferenttypeofact,basedongood
intentionsordirecircumstances.Butsuchanapproachiscontrarytothedefinitiveteachingofthe
Magisteriumonintrinsicevil.
Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act,
intrinsicallyevilbyvirtueofitsobject,intoanact'subjectively'goodordefensibleasachoice."
(VeritatisSplendor,n.81.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act
whichisintrinsicallyillicit,sinceitiscontrarytotheLawofGodwhichiswrittenineveryhuman
heart,knowablebyreasonitself,andproclaimedbytheChurch."(EvangeliumVitae,n.62.)

Allintrinsicallyevilactsaredefinedsolelybytheirmoralobject.Sotheintentionsofthespouses
donotdetermineifthechosenactisthesinofcontraception,orthesinofabortion.Eveniftheone
spouse has a good intended end, does not intend to deprive the marital act of the procreative
meaning,anddoesnotintendthedeathsofanyprenatalchildren,agoodintentiondoesnotjustify
thedeliberatechoiceofagravelydisorderedintrinsicallyevilact.Thenoncontraceptingspouseis
deliberatelychoosingtoparticipatewiththecontraceptingspouseincontraceptedsexualacts,even
actswhichmightresultinabortion.Andsothe'noncontracepting'spouseisactuallyaparticipant
inthesinofcontraception,andeveninthesinofabortion.Thoughtheonespouseisnotusingthe
contraceptive, or the abortifacient contraceptive, this same spouse is deliberately choosing to
participateinthecontraceptedsexualact.Thistypeofparticipationisintrinsicallyevil.

Some moral theologians might view the noncontracepting spouse's participation as a form of
formalcooperation.However,formalcooperationwithanintrinsicallyevilandgravelyimmoralact
is itself intrinsically evil and gravely immoral. And so, even in this approach, the 'non
contracepting' spouse is committing an objective mortal sin by agreeing to have sexual relations
withtheknowledgethattheotherspouseiscontracepting.

Neitherthesinofcontraception,northesinofabortion,caneverbejustifiedbyanygoodintention,
norbyanydifficultcircumstance,nobyanyotherfactorswhatsoever.Agoodintentiondoesnot
justify an intrinsically evil act. And every human person is obligated by the eternal moral law to
avoidcommittinganyandallintrinsicallyevilacts,regardlessoftheconsequences.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

13.Howisnaturalfamilyplanning(NFP)differentfromartificialbirthcontrol(ABC)?

Tobemoral,eachandeverysexualactmustbemaritalandunitiveandprocreative.NFPallows
maritalrelationstobeopentolifeandopentothewillofGodconcerningprocreation.Thesexual
acts of a husband and wife who use natural family planning always retain the unitive and
procreativemeaning.Therefore,theuseofNFPismoral.

But the intentional use of contraception deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning.
Therefore,theuseofartificialbirthcontrolisintrinsicallyevilandgravelyimmoral.

"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.
Contraceptionisgravelyopposedtomaritalchastityitiscontrarytothegoodofthetransmission
oflife(theprocreativeaspectofmatrimony),andtothereciprocalselfgivingofthespouses(the
unitive aspect of matrimony) it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the
transmissionofhumanlife.Aspecificandmoreseriousmoralevilispresentintheuseofmeans
which have an abortive effect, impeding the implantation of the embryo which has just been
fertilizedorevencausingitsexpulsioninanearlystageofpregnancy."(PontificalCouncilforthe
Family, Vademecum 'Go with me' for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of
ConjugalLife,n.45.)

The deliberate use of ABC is intrinsically evil because it deprives the marital act of the good of
procreation,andalsoharmstheunitivemeaning.Theuseofartificialbirthcontroliscontrarytothe
morallawandinherentlyimmoral.

However, natural family planning does not deprive sexual acts of the procreative meaning. NFP
consistsoftwotypesofacts:abstainingfromsexualrelationsforaperiodoftime,andengagingin
sexual relations open to life for a period of time. But when engaging in sexual relations, the
spouses' sexual acts are always marital, unitive, and procreative. They do not use any type of
contraceptivepillordevice.Theyengageonlyinnaturalmaritalrelationsopentolife.Whileitis
truethatabstainingfromsexualrelationsforatimeisnotprocreative,itisalsonotasexualact,and
so it need not be procreative. The Church has always permitted married couples to refrain from
maritalrelationsforperiodsoftime.

[1Corinthians]
{7:1}Nowconcerningthethingsaboutwhichyouwrotetome:Itisgoodforamannottotoucha
woman.
{7:2}But,becauseoffornication,leteachmanhavehisownwife,andleteachwomanhaveher
ownhusband.
{7:3} A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife, and a wife should also act similarly
towardherhusband.
{7:4}Itisnotthewife,butthehusband,whohaspoweroverherbody.But,similarlyalso,itisnot
thehusband,butthewife,whohaspoweroverhisbody.
{7:5}So,donotfailinyourobligationstooneanother,exceptperhapsbyconsent,foralimited
time,sothatyoumayemptyyourselvesforprayer.Andthen,returntogetheragain,lestSatantempt
youbymeansofyourabstinence.

Notice that Sacred Scripture permits both types of acts which comprise NFP: natural marital
relationsopentolife,andabstainingfrommaritalrelationsforalimitedtime,withtheconsentof
bothspouses.

Furthermore,theinfallibleteachingoftheCouncilofTrentimpliesthatNFPismoral.

CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a
separationmaytakeplacebetweenhusbandandwife,inregardofbed,orinregardofcohabitation,
for a determinate or for an indeterminate period let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th
Session,OntheSacramentofMatrimony)

SoanyonewhoclaimsthattheChurcherrsbyallowing"aseparationbetweenhusbandandwife,
inregardofbed"(i.e.abstainingfromsexualrelations)"foradeterminateorforanindeterminate
period"isassertingaheresy.Thosewhoclaimthatnaturalfamilyplanningisnotmoral,andisno
different from artificial birth control, are contradicting the definitive teaching of an Ecumenical
Council.

Thegoodendoffamilyplanningmustbesoughtbyagoodmeansinordertobemoral.Theuseof
artificialbirthcontrolistheuseofanimmoralmeanstoagoodend.Fortheenddoesnotjustifythe
means.Butnaturalfamilyplanningallowseverymaritalacttobeopentolife.ABCisinherently
directedtowardclosingthemaritalacttolife.ThatiswhyNFPisamoralmeans,andABCisan
immoralmeanstothegoodendoffamilyplanning.

[ReturntoListofQuestions]

14.Ispassionatekissingonlymoralwithinmarriage?

May a man and a woman who are dating, but unmarried, engage in passionate kissing? Is
passionatekissingoutsideofmarriagemoral,oravenialsin,oramortalsin?

Manymoralistsclaimthat'passionate'kissingisalwaysanobjectivemortalsinforanyunmarried
manandwoman,regardlessofintentionorcircumstances,evenifthecoupleisengaged.Butthey
allowthatnonpassionatekissingismoral.Thereareseveraldoctrinalproblemswiththisclaim.

First,onlyintrinsicallyevilactsarealwaysimmoralregardlessofintentionorcircumstances.There
arethreefontsofmorality,ifanactisimmoralregardlessoftwofonts,itmustbeimmoralunder
theremainingfont.Intrinsicallyevilactshaveanevilmoralobjectthemoralnatureoftheactis
inherently disordered. But the addition of the adjective 'passionate' does not signify a different
moral nature, nor a different moral object. So if the type of act and the moral object have not
changed, then the act cannot be intrinsically evil. For the moral object always is the sole
determinantofthemoralnature(orspecies)ofanact.

We are not here discussing lust, which is intrinsically evil, because lust is a type of act, not an
adjectivedescribinganact.Although,insecularterms,anyactmightbedescribedaslustful,sucha
phrasingdoesnotnecessarilysignifytheobjectivemortalsinoflust.Ifkissing,oranyotheract,
eventhemereactoflookingataperson,isaccompaniedbyaninterioractoflust,itisthatinterior
actwhichisalwaysgravelyimmoral,notthekissingorthelooking.

Second, passion refers to emotion. But emotions, even strong emotions, do not necessarily imply
sin.Forexample,JesusbecameangryintheTemple,whenHedroveoutthebuyersandthesellers:
"Zealforyourhouseconsumesme."(John2:17).AndHeexperiencedtheemotionsofsorrowand
fear in the garden at the beginning of His Passion: "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death." (Mt
26:38),and,"Andhebegantobeafraid...."(Mk14:33).
Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and so neither Jesus nor Mary
experienced sexual passion or sexual arousal. But this emotion which results from being in the
fallenstateisnotitselfasin,andwhenitisaccompaniedbysin,thesinisnotnecessarilymortal.
Emotions are not knowingly chosen acts. Only knowingly chosen immoral acts are sins. A
knowinglychosenimmoralactmightresultinoneemotionoranother,orapersonmightknowingly
makeasinfulchoiceinresponsetoanemotion,butemotionsarenotthemselvessins.Sotheidea
thatkissingbecomesamortalsinmerelybecauseanemotionoccursduringkissingisabsurd.

Third,kissingdoesnothaveanevilmoralobject."Greetoneanotherwithaholykiss."(Romans
16:16).Akissmightbeaccompaniedbyasinofonetypeoranother."Andhewhobetrayedhim
gavethemasign,saying:'WhomeverIwillkiss,itishe.Takeholdofhim.'"(Mt26:48).Butthe
actitselfofkissingisnotintrinsicallyevil.

Neitherdoesanyemotion,evenemotionsresultingfromthefallenstate,haveanevilmoralobject.
Although certain interior sins, such as lust, or hatred, or envy, etc., are often confused with the
associated emotions (feelings), morally there is a very sharp distinction between experiencing an
emotion, and knowingly choosing an immoral act. The emotion of anger is not the sin of hatred.
Thefeelingofjealousyisnotthesinofenvy.Theemotion(orfeelingsof)passionarenotthesinof
lust.Noemotionhasanevilmoralobject,becausefeelingsarenotknowinglychosenacts.

Anexcessofangermightoccurifapersonisharmedbyanotherperson,andhesinsbychoosingto
dwell on that harm, and he sins by choosing not to forgive the injury, and he sins by choosing
variousactsthatresultinexcessiveanger.Andinexperiencingthisexcessofangercausedbyhis
sins,hemightnextchoosethesinofrevenge.Buttheinitialangerisnotasin.Andthesubsequent
excessive anger is a bad consequence of his knowingly chosen acts, but it is not itself a sin.
(Excessiveangeris'physicalevil',notmoralevil.)

Anexcessofpassionmaybetheresultofsinfulacts,suchasunmarriedpersonschoosingactsof
excessive physical affection or excessive sensuality. And the resultant feelings may make it
difficultfortheunmarriedcoupletoremainchaste.Inthiscase,iftheactsofphysicalaffectionor
sensuality do not include any intrinsically evil acts, then the morality would depend on intention
andcircumstances.Butthefactthattheemotionofpassionoccursduringkissing(orsimilaracts)
doesnotcausetheacttobecomeanobjectivemortalsin.

Fourth,whenanunmarriedmanandwomankiss,thefontsofintentionorcircumstancesmightbe
gravely immoral: such as an intention to induce the other person to commit an intrinsically evil
sexual act, or a circumstance in which the kissing can reasonably be anticipated to have gravely
harmful bad consequences (such as a near occasion of mortal sin). Or a related but distinct act
might be gravely immoral, such as an interior act of lust. But the use the term 'passionate' to
describethekissingdoesnotimplythatanyofthethreefontsisgravelyimmoral,nordoesitimply
anaccompanyinggravelyimmoralact.

Fifth,kissingandsimilaractsoflimitedsensuality(butalwaysnongenitalacts)assistacouplewho
areconsideringmarriage,orwhoareengaged,inpreparingforlateractsofnaturalmaritalrelations
 open to life. This good consequence can certainly outweigh some bad consequences of limited
moralweight.Andtheintentiontoexpressaffection,ortoprepareformoralsexualactsatalater
time,withinmarriage,aremoralintentions.

Sixth,theusualapproachtothisquestionlacksanyconsiderationofdegreesofsin.Kissingissaid
to be moral, but when it becomes, at some point, passionate, it is said to be suddenly gravely
immoral. There is no acknowledgement of degrees of sin. But without any gravely immoral
intention,oragravelyimmoralobject,orbadconsequencesthatoutweighgoodconsequencestoa
graveextent,thereisnobasisforthisclaimofmortalsin.

Seventh,underthethreefontsapproachtomorality,noneofthefontsisgravelyimmoralmerely
because the kissing has become passionate. Some degree of selfishness might be present in the
intention of one or both persons, but this would be a venial sin. There may be some limited bad
consequences to excessive sensuality in that the persons are aroused and chastity becomes
somewhatmoredifficult,butnotnecessarilygravelyso.Andthereisnogravelyimmoralobjectin
suchacts,sinceallgenitalsexualactsareabsentfrommerekissingandsimilarlimitedexpressions
ofaffectionandsensuality.

Therefore,passionatekissingandsimilaractsofaffectionbetweenanunmarriedmanandwoman
are not necessarily objective mortal sin. The mere emotion of sexual passion is not a knowingly
chosenimmoralact.Andtheactsthatleadtothisemotionmaybemoral,ormaybevenialsins.
Kissingwithpassionmayhavesomedegreeofdisorderinintentionorcircumstances,butnotso
that this knowingly chosen act would be always entirely incompatible with the love of God and
neighbor,andwiththestateofgraceinthesoul.

byRonaldL.ConteJr.
RomanCatholictheologian
TranslatoroftheCatholicPublicDomainVersionoftheBible
Moreabouttheauthor

Foranindepthexplanationofmaritalsexualethicsaswellasthebasicprinciples
ofCatholicmoraltheology,seemybook:TheCatechismofCatholicEthics.

ReturntotheArticlesIndex|CatholicPlanet.com|CatholicPlanet.net|NaturalFamilyPlanning.info|
SacredBible.org

ThisarticleiscopyrightedbyRonaldL.ConteJr.AllRightsReserved.