Another point about contraception outside of marriage

A poster over at Catholic Answers made an excellent point, based on 1 Cor 6:16, that the unitive meaning may still be present, even if the marital or procreative meanings are absent, as in the case of a man who has relations with a prostitute using contraception.

[1 Corinthians]
{6:16} And do you not know that whoever is joined to a harlot becomes one body? “For the two,” he said, “shall be as one flesh.”

According to Scripture, the absence of the marital meaning in sexual relations with a prostitute does not deprive the act of the unitive meaning. The same expression, two becoming one flesh, that is used by Jesus about the unitive meaning in marital relations (Mt 19:5) is also used in cases of extra-marital relations (1 Cor 6:16).

This point implies that contraception outside of marriage is immoral.

For just as the absence of the marital meaning does not destroy the unitive meaning, so also the absence of the marital meaning does not destroy the procreative meaning. Therefore, the choice to have sex outside of marriage, and the choice to use contraception in extra-marital sex, are two distinct gravely immoral sins. The one sin deprives the sexual act of the marital meaning, and the other sin deprives the act of the procreative meaning.

Sexual relations outside of marriage, with the unitive and procreative meanings intact, is a grave sin because it is non-marital. But non-marital sexual acts become even more gravely disordered, and therefore even more sinful, when contraception is also used. The greater the moral disorder in any act, the greater the sin.

This entry was posted in ethics, theology of the body. Bookmark the permalink.