Will pro-RH Catholics go to Hell when they die? If my research on the official teachings of the Catholic Church is correct, then it’s likely. This is not reserved for those who actually use contraceptives. Even Catholics who merely believe it’s OK to use them share the same fate.
I am not making this up. Nor is this based on some fringe fundamentalist position within the Catholic Church. This is based on the official teachings of the Vatican, and almost every statement I’ll cite to prove it came from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Threats and Taunts from the CBCP
Since an RH (reproductive health) bill was proposed over a decade ago, the CBCP and their cohorts have reacted to pro-RH Catholics in several ways, from threats of excommunication to insults such as “oxymoron,” both implying that an anti-RH position is required to remain in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church.
But are any of these threats and taunts valid? Are pro-RH Catholics still Catholic? Can the CBCP excommunicate someone for their pro-RH position? What happens to pro-RH Catholics when they die?
I’ll do my best to answer these questions — and explain how pro-RH Catholics could go to Hell — from the perspective of the Pope, the Vatican, and their version of God. I make this distinction because there are many progressive theologians and even more baptized Catholics who disagree with the Vatican.
As a freethinker, I do not believe in the Vatican’s authority — threats of excommunication and damnation are meaningless to me. And if there were a god — that is, an all-wise, all-loving god — I believe She’d have nothing against using artificial contraception and individual conscience. This is the God pro-RH Catholics believe in, and it goes without saying that She has no punishments reserved for the pro-RH.
Of course, this is all anathema to the Vatican, and whether this dissent is valid is a topic I’ll leave for another day. For now, here’s what the Vatican actually says about pro-RH Catholics.
I want to emphasize that I don’t agree with what the Vatican says. I don’t even think their views are worth anyone’s attention. But Catholics, regardless of their position on RH, should at least be aware of what their leaders think — especially those who claim to be infallible.
***
Are pro-RH Catholics still Catholic?
Yes. When a person is baptized Catholic, he remains Catholic until death.
Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become “unbaptized,” although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin.
Once a Catholic, always a Catholic — even if they get excommunicated, disagree with dogma (heretics), join a different denomination (schismatics), or leave Christianity altogether (apostates). They just become excommunicated Catholics, heretic Catholics, schismatic Catholics, and so on. In other words, although they are not in full communion with the Church — not fully Catholic — they are Catholic nonetheless.
Can the CBCP excommunicate someone for their pro-RH position?
It’s possible, but highly unlikely. Even pro-abortion Catholics are spared from excommunication:
Politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion. “Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. … Politicians exclude themselves from Communion.”
Next to excommunication — which excludes someone from all sacraments — exclusion from Holy Communion is the worst punishment a Catholic can get. We’ll return to this exclusion shortly.
What is the worst punishment possible for being pro-RH?
Eternal Damnation. Although there is no single statement that explicitly says this, we can follow the implications of several teachings and come to the same conclusion. I’ve elaborated this in 5 steps, each supported by official Vatican documents:
1. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is inherently evil, and that this teaching is a definitive doctrine 1:
Every action which , whether in 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 is intrinsically evil.
– Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370
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. [In other words, infallible.]
– Official Guide for Confessors issued by the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family
2. Catholics who deny definitive doctrines are not in full communion with the Catholic Church:
Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths [definitive doctrines] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
– Joseph Ratzinger, “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
3. Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church must abstain from receiving Holy Communion:
Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected.
– Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles
This is the same punishment proposed by the Vatican for pro-abortion Catholics mentioned above.
4. Catholics who do not fulfill their obligation to receive Holy Communion commit a grave sin.
The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
When you freely commit a sin knowing that it is of a grave matter, you commit a mortal sin. Note that receiving Holy Communion when you are unworthy is itself a grave matter (sacrilege), so freely committing it with full knowledge of its graveness is yet another mortal sin.
5. Catholics who die in mortal sin go to Hell:
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”
Remember that any contraception, if done freely with the knowledge of its graveness, is by itself a mortal sin. But what I’ve elaborated above shows that even the belief 2 that contraception is not inherently evil already disqualifies Catholics from partaking in Holy Communion. This is the same reason excommunication is a big deal: It excludes Catholics from the sacraments, of which Communion is the most important. And as I’ve shown, the Vatican teaches that without Communion, there’s no salvation.
Pro-RH Catholics and the Pope
So there you have it. According to the Vatican, Pro-RH Catholics, by their denial of a definitive doctrine, are not in full communion with the Church, preventing them from fulfilling their obligation to receive Holy Communion — a mortal sin, which if left unconfessed, means their souls will go to Hell when they die.
This should be more alarming than it is, but I realize this early that this information will be trivial to many. Because if you’re a pro-RH Catholic — someone who uses or promotes contraceptives in good conscience — you probably don’t care what the Pope says anyway.
The easiest way to get excommunicated
Not caring what the Pope says means you probably don’t believe in his infallibility. This, by the way, is a divinely revealed doctrine:
To the truths of the first paragraph [which refers to divinely revealed truths] belong … the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff …
Denying a divinely revealed doctrine, such as papal infallibility, is another mortal sin, one of the few that can get you an automatic excommunication:
So according to the Pope, thinking that he could be wrong in a matter of faith and morals — such as his views on the evil of contraception — will get you automatically excommunicated. But then again, if you’re pro-RH, you probably disagree.
***
[1] On questioning the infallibility of the contraception teaching
Some progressive Catholics argue that the teaching on the inherent evil of contraception (let’s call it contraception teaching from here on) is not an infallible one. They make this mistake because they think that the only way for a teaching to be infallible is for it to be pronounced infallible by the Pope.
And officially, no Pope has pronounced the contraception teaching infallible by himself. But when a teaching is taught for a long time by most (if not all) Catholic bishops together with the Pope, the teaching is considered infallible — infallible by the Church’s teaching authority. This teaching authority is also known as the ordinary universal Magisterium. Some examples of teachings considered infallible in this way are the inherent evil of murder, prostitution, fornication, homosexual acts, abortion, euthanasia, ordination of women priests, and finally, contraception.
So although the teaching on contraception was not pronounced ex cathedra (with a solemn declaration of infallibility) by any pope, it is infallible by virtue of the unbroken tradition of bishops and popes collectively teaching its inherent evil.
The infallibility of the contraception teaching was the same conclusion reached by most Catholic theologians, both progressive — such as Hans Kung — and conservative — such as John C. Ford.
Because the teaching on contraception is an infallibly taught truth, it is a definitive doctrine and should therefore be held definitively by all Catholics.
But why must infallible truths be held definitively? When the Pope or the ordinary universal Magisterium teaches something infallibly, it is as if the teaching is made by God himself. This is reflected clearly by the following statements made by Pope John Paul II on the contraception teaching.
In the late 80s, he said that Humanae Vitae was “written by the creative hand of God in the nature of the human person,” and that Catholic theologians could not doubt the ban on contraception because doing so would be like doubting “the very idea of God’s holiness.” If that doesn’t convince you he thinks the contraception teaching is infallible, I don’t know what will.
[2] The difference between a sin of action and a sin of belief.
You may commit a sin, while believing that it is wrong. In this case all you have to do is confess and try your best not to do it again. But if your sin has to do with failing to believe something you’re supposed to believe, you can’t just confess. You have to change your belief as well. If you can’t ever change your belief — or don’t even want to try — then you’ll be in a state of perpetual sin.
Consider contraception. An anti-RH Catholic might out of “weakness” be forced to use a condom while thinking that it is immoral. He will be guilty until his next confession, or probably a few weeks after that. But once he confesses, the mortal sin is forgiven, and he’s back in full communion, worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist.
This success story does not apply to the pro-RH Catholic. If a pro-RH Catholic uses a condom and thinks it’s OK, he can’t just confess the action. Forget that it would be weird for him to confess something he doesn’t think is wrong. But even if he does confess the action, if he doesn’t change the belief, he’ll still be unworthy of the Holy Eucharist. And if he continues believing “immorally,” he never will be.
Of course, some will say you can believe something and at the same time think that the said belief is wrong. I won’t even try to get into that.
WHY IS IT EVIL (to support the RH bill)? Sadly, because the "holy" leaders of our church and the "morally upright" wannabes (a "moralist" lawyer who staunchly defends an immoral client) say so! And, as we all know, at least based on a satire posted here, the priests/bishops are 'never' wrong!
If you ask me, a real catholic, who embraced his faith and chose to live by it, should use his God-given intellect to analyze, discern for him/herself what is right and wrong and not merely follow what is told of him/her! As this bill hopes to address something good (and not something evil), regardless of what our
leaders say, then I see no reason why a right-thinking (after sifting through all the lies and falsehoods), broad-minded catholic should not support the said bill.
Good old fear and intimidation, apparently, the Philippine Catholic Church is stuck in the Middle Ages, or they think they're Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Either way, it's the same. They can take this order, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways shove it where the sun don't shine.
In most TV footages showing Manny Pacquiao, as a staunch anti-RH propagandist, hearing mass, there are a couple of leeches, I mean, politicians, who clearly show their devotion to their faith (closing their eyes, raising their arms, etc). These politicians are vehemently opposed to the RH bill for being immoral and contrary to their catholic faith and beliefs.
QUESTION: why do the pro-life advocates and the church keep them as supporters when they are known to be corrupt and immoral themselves? Isn't hypocrisy a ground for excommunication?
No. Hypocrisy is not an offense that merits excommunication. If it did, the Vatican would not exist.
Hahaha! I knew somebody would not be able to resist. I knew it wasn't a ground, but I like your justification better.hehe
ummm… what are those 2 guys doing in the picture?
Necking :p
Very observant of you! xD
I'm sure the Vatican will vehemently object to such indecent behavior! But if those two were priests then they'll just cover it up and blame it on everything else but themselves.
The irony here is this: most Catholics would say one cannot fully understand God. Yet, many people kept yapping about what God thinks, not explaining HOW the hell they could possibly know these things. Maybe these are special beings, pope included, who have some special direct line to God?
THE POPE IS NOT INFALLIBLE. No matter what he thinks, he isn't a god. He is just a human being. Okay, now someone excommunicate please.
Oh, don't worry because you already are. This is called "latae sententiae".
Look it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae
But if you're interested in a formal defection, then I have to inform you that it is no longer possible. Check it out here: http://www.technomancy.org/catholic-defection/
That's what I'm afraid of. Probably they don't want to realize that the number of real Catholics are very much less than what they want it to be.
Yet another reason for me to never have my son baptized unless he himself makes the request when he's older.
You could still probably punch a priest and upload it on youtube (you might even earn some money from ads) and be publicly excommunicated.
although punching the pope would probably garner billions of views compared to a few million for a regular priest
How about punching an former bishop? hehe
Be practical. None of the former bishops who've been flapping their gob over the RH Bill are worth dirtying one's knuckles over.
You're absolutely right there. On second thought, I'll just kick their heads, which are stuck way up in their asses, with my smelly, dirty, worn-out shoes….hopefully, that will dislodge their heads from their asses and jolt them back to reality!
I agree that it isn't practical and down right dumb, but it's nice to just daydream from time to time. pretend like a freedom fighter going up against those despot wannabes.
I think I watch too much anime
[pretend like a freedom fighter going up against those despot wannabes. ]
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. 'Nuff said.
Sins of commission: ProRH members use contraception to prevent fertilization, possibly saving a woman's life, providing better living for her family, which is wrong according to the Church. We are to be condemned for this.
Sins of ommission: ProLife members refuse to provide proper education or willingly misinforms people about contraception to women who need it, up to 2,000 women die due to easily avoidable complications. They (prolife) are the chosen ones.
One homily i heard was that: It was better to suffer or die in the name of God than to go against His teachings. So it is implied that all those suffering and dying as a result are to be considered martyrs. They are chosen to be martyrs by a priest, not by their own volition.
I remember a certain Islamic extremist say something similar, when innocent people die due to bombings.
Again… priests and the catholic church are not GOD. Priests are human beings, who commit sins just like any other human being and who can inject their own beliefs and biases into their sermons, and worst of all, modify the bible itself. I would really like it if God himself would come down from heaven and tell this to me. And if that happens, I will gladly support the Anti-RH people. But unfortunately, that will never happen. That's why he blessed us with a brain so that we will be able to think for the betterment of mankind and to make sound decisions.
We already pointed that out. Priests are not God, but they say really stupid things in the name of God. No man should be "holy" or "chosen" enough to interpret the bible. To shove their own version of morality down other people's throat is sickening.
And basing every morals and knowledge on 2,000 year old book, is detrimental.
As Miriam Santiago said: Do priests have a direct line to God? lol.
Priests would like to think so. I'd say most have some delusions of importance.
They listen to voices in their heads. I think it's safe to conclude that they're deluded in general.
I appreciate your research. But you must realize that God is not the Roman Catholic Church. God is not the Pope. God is not the Vatican. The Bible did not mention any specific religion that he will allow to enter his kingdom, therefore God did not say anything about sending anybody to hell if any person disobeys the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. True that the Roman Catholic Church serves its purpose well in bringing the word of the Lord to man kind, but still, clergymen are HUMANS… humans who are imperfect and who commit sins just like any other human being. Humans who are enslaved by their biological drives.
It is not our fault that our bodies produce hormones and our minds are unconsciously seeking for sexual pleasure. Because if we are not naturally wired to be this way, then why are there millions of abortion cases all over the world? Why do teenage parents exist? Why are there squatters with 10 children living in tiny houses in slum areas? Why do philandering husbands exist? And helpless wives who just abandon themselves to their philandering husbands because they are afraid of being battered? And most importantly, why are there members of the clergy who are charged of sexual harassment? See! Even God’s religious leaders are slaves to their own natural drives.
And do you think God wants children to go hungry and to live a miserable life and to pay the price their sinful parents did? Do you think God wants them to grow up being prostitutes and thieves and drug dealers because they are not able to feed themselves?
And what solutions does the Church have for such people? Lecture them to death about responsible parenthood? Bathe them in holy water as to wash away the sexual temptation from them? Do they expect sexually harassed wives to pray the rosary every time their husbands would come thrashing around? Or call an exorcist to rid of the sexual demon that possess their husbands?
I admit that using contraceptives is considered a sinful act. This is according to the 9th commandment and other bible verses that disallow us to commit sexual profanity (because the body is the temple of the holy spirit etc). But again, I’ve said it a million times before… we are HUMANS. We are IMPERFECT. And nothing is perfect in this world: choosing the RH Bill is like choosing the lesser of two evils. By using contraceptives, we commit sins that can be enumerated by citing a number of bible verses. But by using contraceptives and by being educated about sex, we are preventing a chain of other sins from being committed. A lifetime of sins. Sins that will be passed down from generation to generation.
And if you are wondering, I am a believer of the God.
The closest that Scripture comes to specifically condemning birth control is Genesis chapter 38, the account of Judah's sons Er and Onan. Er married a woman named Tamar, but he was wicked and the Lord put him to death, leaving Tamar with no husband or children. Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan, in accordance with the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Onan did not want to split his inheritance with any child that he might produce on his brother's behalf, so he practiced the oldest form of birth control, withdrawal. Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so He put him to death also.” Onan's motivation was selfish: he used Tamar for his own pleasure, but refused to perform his legal duty of creating an heir for his deceased brother. This passage is often used as evidence that God does not approve of birth control. However, it was not explicitly the act of contraception that caused the Lord to put Onan to death; it was Onan’s selfish motives behind the action.
What other verses are you talking about?
And what ninth commandment? Unless You're talking about 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor' which has nothing to do with contraception.
The only part of the bible where God dictated the ten commandments are Deuteronomy 5:6–21 and Exodus 20:2–17.
your argument above only shows how fallible and how debatable God's existence is.
Was God angry because Onan withdrew or because he did not want to have an heir? 2,000 year old text lost to interpretation.
My personal interpretation it was the latter. That was their law at the time. Would I want to have sex with the widow of my brother? Hell no. unless she was smoking hot, but that is for another topic.
This is why you never take the bible literally. Outdated cultures, squicky incest sex, death murder and decay which were acceptable over 2 millenia ago.
Very true. What's sad is these priests know that their followers doesn't really read the bible themselves and uses this to their advantage by distorting it to their own interpretation. Tsk.
Precisely. These priests takes advantage of the fact that their followers doesn't really read the contents of the bible and therefore successfully manipulating them through their own interpretations.
Now the question is would I like to have sex with my brother's widow? hmmmm.
The essential difference between most thinking atheists and yourself is that while you can brandish argumentum ad nauseam statements like "We are IMPERFECT" and that "using contraceptives is considered a sinful act", thinking atheists exercise more caution before accepting such premises. Pushing it even further, the basic premise that thinking atheists despise most is that "God exists", however implicit the statement is expressed, because – and let's not pretend that it isn't so – it cannot stand up to reasonable scrutiny. If it did, then "faith" as an exulted virtue shouldn't exist at all.
So while I commend your reluctance to accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over you, I have to express serious reservations with how you justify that same reluctance.
Weren't contraceptives outlawed as a sin only after Humanae Vitae was written? Around.. 1986?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae -1968
It was never really outlawed.But the Church like any scientific studies and personal matters made the decision that it was immoral. What it did was to split the Church in its beliefs. A number of priests saw the point that it should not interfere.
See the Galileo Affair as this makes things come to light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair – goes to show how religion sets scientific progress back a few hundred years or so.
Yeah. Typo sorry, 1968.
Didn't some clergymen oppose? Were they allowed to?
And thats why we have protestantism, atheism and agnosticism dear boy
I once asked my girlfriend what it would take for her let go of beliefs that are unjustified and, at its core, inherently inhumane. I was of course referring to her belief in the Catholic church. "Belief" in this case is an overstatement because she didn't actually believed inasmuch as she feared the ire of her conservative family. Her reply ran along these lines: "Titigil ako sa paniniwala kung mapapatunayan sa aking nakakasakit ang mga paniniwalang ito."
Laying out the logical conclusions of religious dogma, as you have done here, is one way to go at it. It's just sad that the default position of so many among us is one of passive acceptance because to do otherwise is to risk social suicide.
I hope more people become convinced that social suicide, as a consequence, is the more rational, not to mention ethical, choice when the alternative is mindless servitude and the threat of hellfire.