Mortal Sin, Grave Matter, Fornication, and More

A recent comment from "outside observer" raised some interesting quesions and assertions. I'll try to respond. "outside observer's" comments are in RED.

Your line: "Objectively, it is a mortal sin" is absolutely false. It would be correct to say, however, that "Objectively, it is grave matter." Unless you know whether a person has "full consent of will" and "intent to do harm," you cannot know if it is a 'mortal sin.'

First, let's read from Fr. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary:

MORTAL SIN. An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the super­natural death of the soul. Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creatures that causes grave injury to a person's ra­tional nature and to the social order, and deprives the sinner of a right to heaven.

The terms mortal, deadly, grave, and seri­ous applied to sin are synonyms, each with a slightly different implication. Mortal and deadly focus on the effects in the sinner, namely deprivation of the state of friendship with God; grave and serious refer to the im­portance of the matter in which a person offends God. But the Church never distin­guishes among these terms as though they represented different kinds of sins. There is only one recognized correlative to mortal sin, and that is venial sin, which offends against God but does not cause the loss of one's state of grace. (Etym. Latin mors, death.)

When speaking of a grave (mortal) sin in the objective sense, we refer to the act itself not the state of an individual's soul. The statement would, indeed, be false had I said that "Subjectively, it is a mortal sin," since that implies that one has committed a mortal sin and I can impute culpability and judge the state of his soul.

You rightly state that there are conditions required for the commission of a mortal sin. In fact there are three conditions which would constitute, subjectively, a mortal sin:
1) the matter itself is serious or grave;
2) there must be sufficient reflection; and,
3) there must be full consent of the will.

Let us return to your objection that my statement is "absolutely false." In support of my statement that "Fornication is, objectively speaking, a mortal (grave) sin, I submit the following:

The thirteenth ecumenical council, held at Lyons in France (1245), answered the challenge raised by some Eastern Christians influenced by Moslem morality. "Concerning fornication," it declared, "which an unmarried man commits with an unmarried woman, there must not be any doubt at all that it is a mortal sin, since the Apostle declares that 'fornicators and adulterers are cast out of the kingdom of God' (1 Cor. 6:9)." (my emphasis)

If my statement is "absolutely false," then you must also conclude that this ecumenical council was also wrong.

A century later, the ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-12) condemned the Beghards and Beguines for claiming that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not wrong, "since nature inclines to this."

In the seventeenth century, Pope Alexander VII censured the theory that a penitent "who had inter­course with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying, 'I committed a grievous sin against chastity with an un­married woman,' without mentioning the intercourse."

And before the end of the same century, Innocent XI condemned the idea that, since premarital intercourse injures no one and may be engaged in from sentiments of love, it is not contrary to the natural law. In the language of those who defended the practice, "Fornication by its nature involves no malice; it is an evil only because it is forbidden."

The same teaching on premarital relations continues in the Catholic moral doctrine of today.

The quotes and excerpts above are from The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John Hardon.

Secondly, the line "Intercourse is the divinely instituted means for married person to cooperate with God in procreating children" is past its time.

I certainly do not wish to diminish the unitive aspect of marriage which is essential. However, your position that "Intercourse is the divinely instituted means for married person to cooperate with God in procreating children" is "past its time" seems to be at odds with the Church.

Again, quoting Fr Hardon in his discussion on Christian marriage, we read:

Under pressure from their critics, Catholic theologians have sometimes been tempted to question the primacy of procreation of children in married life. But as often as the issue comes up, the traditional position is upheld and reiterated, that the first reason why God instituted marriage was to have children born into the world and reared in His knowledge and love. Thus in 1944, the Holy Office (over which the Pope himself is chairman), in answer to an inquiry, repeated the familiar teaching. Some years later, Pius XII further clarified the doctrine. (my emphasis)

As a natural institution and in virtue of the will of the Creator, marriage has for its first and intimate purpose not the personal perfection of husband and wife but the procreation and formation of new life (through education). The other ends of marriage are certainly willed by nature, but they have not the same excellence as the first and much less are they superior to it. In fact they are essentially subordinate.
(Pius XII, Address of October 29, 1951)

And St Augustine tells us that "The procreation of children is itself the primary, natural, legitimate purpose of marriage." (De Conjugiis Adulterinus, II, 12).

Since the time of Jesus to the turn of the century, the life span of a human crept up from 35 years to 41 years old. Since then, however, it has basically doubled. Science has improved as well.

I'm unclear where you want to go with this. Do you mean that being "open to life" when engaging in sexual intercourse is no longer necessary?

IF intercourse is, as you say above, the means to procreate, then there are a number of 'issues' here. NFP ("Natural Family Planning") tells us that there really is a small window of opportunity to produce a child - the prime target a mere 18 hours, with enough leeway to allow about 36 hours, roughly speaking, per month. There are times too during the month that, no matter what a couple does, a baby is not going to be conceived. Knowing our bodies and knowing the women's cycle means that a couple cannot produce a child for certain over a 2 week period. Is sex then just "mutual masturbation?" And after a woman has hit menopause ... again - no matter what you do, 'ya definitely ain't producin' no kids!'

First, if you read the comment I made carefully, I was quoting Fr John Hardon.
Second, if a couple is always "open to life," it makes little difference whether or not the married woman is able to conceive. The fact that both husband and wife give themselves totally and completely to each other (always open to life) does not frustrate the conjugal, procreative act.

So ... is sex supposed to be stopped while a woman is having her period? Once she hits menopause? What about women who have had their uterus or cervix removed because of cancer or other health problems? Isn't sex then just 'mutual masterbation,' because there is no chance of procreation, and therefore, according to your sources, this is simply "mutual selfishness?" [Please don't tell me that it's okay for the 70+ year old couple because they're "open" to procreation ...]

OK...while trying to ignore the picture you're painting and since I've already stated it above, I'll not state it again. However, it must be understood that deliberate contraceptive acts are those which can be viewed as 'mutual masterbation.' In each of the examples you've given, this is not the case.

Therefore, is it possible for a couple to have sex simply as an expression of their love for each other - knowing that no children can possibly come from it? -outside observer

Most certainly it is. And no one has stated otherwise. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"[150] teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."[151] "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."[152]

I hope this helps. And if I've misspoken on something, please feel free to comment.