# Can men who fathered a child out of wedlock become Roman Catholic priests? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 22, 2016, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572 "2016-09-22T12:22:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/41 "2016-09-25T02:53:51Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Using a condom for any reason is a sin under Catholic doctrine: if you have an STD and don’t want to pass it on, the only acceptable choice (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) is to abstain. I don’t think that’s changing anytime in the near or medium term. Any sex under such circumstances is considered a sin. (A great many things are sins in the eyes of the Catholic Church, including missing a day of obligation without a legitimate reason). \*\*Chronos \*\*said that I was completely misrepresenting Church teaching, but you seem to be supporting what I said. 😕 > [@](#): > > The question under debate is whether under such circumstances, “having sex with a condom” is _less bad_ than “having sex with a condom”. That’s been debated for awhile in Catholic theological circles, and while I don’t think there’s any official pronouncement on the matter, I suspect that the majority of Catholic priests and bishops would say yes, and I’m almost certain Pope Emeritus Benedict and Pope Francis would all say yes, in such cases it’s _less of a sin_ to use a condom than not. “Less of a sin”? Do you mean a \*venial \*sin, as opposed to a \*mortal \*sin? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/42 "2016-09-25T03:27:22Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The question under debate is whether under such circumstances, “having sex with a condom” is _less bad_ than “having sex with a condom”. That’s been debated for awhile in Catholic theological circles, and while I don’t think there’s any official pronouncement on the matter, I suspect that the majority of Catholic priests and bishops would say yes, and I’m almost certain Pope Emeritus Benedict and Pope Francis would all say yes, in such cases it’s _less of a sin_ to use a condom than not. I think you meant “‘having sex with a condom’ is _less bad_ than ‘having sex without a condom.’” True? [CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH Note on the banalization of sexuality Regarding certain interpretations of “Light of the World”](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html) > [@](#): > > Some commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed. [IOANNES PAULUS PP. II VERITATIS SPLENDOR](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html) > [@](#): > > “Intrinsic evil”: it is not licit to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) > … > 80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. > … > With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”. Recent Popes are deadly serious about this: No birth control. Ever. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/43 "2016-09-25T03:45:40Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > “Less of a sin”? Do you mean a \*venial \*sin, as opposed to a \*mortal \*sin? Less of an evil perhaps. But that in no way implies less of a sin. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/44 "2016-09-25T05:09:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Hector\_St\_Clare** : > > If you’re referring to the well known situation of people taking birth control to protect against pregnancy in the event of rape, that doesn’t really count as an exception, since those women aren’t taking the pill with the intent of engaging in contracepted intercourse. That is indeed the case that I knew of, and I would dispute that it “doesn’t really count”. They might not intend to have contracepted intercourse, but they do intend to prevent conception if it should happen that they do have intercourse. **ThelmaLou** , the Church has not changed its positions on this in any notable way in your lifespan. The Church has always held sex (specifically, marital sex) to be very important: Sex within marriage is unnecessary only to the extent that marriage itself is unnecessary. Within Church teaching, a sexless marriage is a contradiction in terms, since sex is itself part of the sacrament of matrimony. Nor does the Church believe anything so absurd as that every ejaculation must carry the possibility of pregnancy. The hierarchy of the Church is well aware of the existence of involuntary ejaculation. In fact, being composed entirely of celibate men, it’s be a miracle if they weren’t aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/45 "2016-09-25T05:51:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > …\ > Nor does the Church believe anything so absurd as that every ejaculation must carry the possibility of pregnancy. The hierarchy of the Church is well aware of the existence of involuntary ejaculation. In fact, being composed entirely of celibate men, it’s be a miracle if they weren’t aware of it. Every VOLUNTARY/INTENTIONAL ejaculation, then. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/46 "2016-09-25T07:40:03Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Question: (tangent, but since it’s come up, I’ll ask) If a doctor says that a pregnancy would be dangerous to a woman’s health-- say, she has kidney disease or brittle diabetes, can the couple get permission for the woman to use birth control, or can she get her tubes tied? or suppose she has cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy? Pregnancy is a really bad idea for a chemo patient. Does she just have to abstain, or can she get permission from a bishop to use birth control? My still-future sister in law would risk her life if she ever got pregnant. She had her tubes tied yoinks ago; as soon as the medical establishment agreed that she was old enough to know her mind about it, which which seems like a very stupid attitude when hello, you doctors are the ones who told her “you get pregnant, you die”. They’re planning a Church wedding, she’s been a catechist… Note that, despite her medical problems, not only are they open to having children: they’re in the middle of adopting one. They met the kid this same month, hopefully my new nephew will be here around Christmas. So, even though her medical problems means she really, really, really shouldn’t have “children of the body”, they follow the instruction to be “open to children”. Normally, you don’t go and ask for permission from anybody, much less from the bishop. The bishop doesn’t have more authority in this than any other priest. You either Just Do It or speak with your confessor, but birth control is something people don’t go announcing in the street, you deal with it privately. And note that on one hand, you’re supposed to not use certain methods of birth control, but on the other you’re supposed to be a responsible parent and that includes not having more children than you can responsibly raise… so a lot of people eventually get either her tubes or his tied, and if anybody has the bollocks to get their panties in a twist about it, claim Responsible Parenthood. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/47 "2016-09-25T10:21:40Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > If you’re referring to the well known situation of people taking birth control to protect against pregnancy in the event of rape, that doesn’t really count as an exception, since those women aren’t taking the pill _with the intent of engaging in contracepted intercourse_. The only well-known situation that I know of is the story of the Belgian nuns stationed in the Congo during the revolution. This story is more likely than not a Catholic urban legend. When questioned about the birth control and the Zika virus during a flight earlier this year, Pope Francis mentioned the nuns and said that Pope Paul VI “permitted” the Belgian nuns to use birth control. However, no evidence exists that any such thing happened. What seems to have actually happened is that in December 1961, the i Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic Studies”) published an article in which [three Jesuit theologians argued that use of contraception could be justified by the nuns](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19640201&id=NjsjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iJ4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5807,129752&hl=en). Paul VI did not become pope until 1963. Since the journal carried the imprimatur of the Catholic Church, people claimed that this meant that the Church approved of the Jesuits’ conclusions, ignoring the fact that academic journals approved by the Church often contain scholarly debates that are not considered Church doctrine. It should be noted that it was unlikely that the contraceptive pill was available in the Congo in 1961 (some retellings of this story stretch the date of the alleged dispensation as late as 1964 to compensate) and the pill was not legalized in Belgium (the home of the nuns)[until 1965.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nand_Peeters) Later, in 1993, another theologian, Fr Giacomo Perico SJ, wrote another academic paper defending the use of birth control by potential rape victims. Using another truly bizarre line of reasoning, a British newspaper ran an article with the headline [“Vatican acts over Bosnian rapes: Birth control ban eased for women at risk.”](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/vatican-acts-overbosnian-rapes-birth-control-ban-eased-for-women-at-risk-1485928.html) The article reasoned that the Church did not stop the theologian from publishing his paper in the journal Civillta Catolica, therefore the Church was granting permission to other potential rape victims to use the pill. In my searches, I found many references to an alleged dispensation for potential rape victims were based on this article, without producing any other evidence that the Vatican had OKed birth control. And there are many other articles that assume that the original dispensation to the nuns in the Congo is an undisputed fact and go from there. But maybe you know of another dispensation that I did not find. Is there any actual hard evidence that this ever happened? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/48 "2016-09-25T12:35:27Z")
Even if it didn’t actually happen, the fact that the Pope thinks it did is surely sufficient evidence that it could be allowable. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/49 "2016-09-25T14:31:57Z")
In regards to using NFP, you have to have very serious reasons for using it, you can’t just say we only plan to have two children spaced three years apart and stop. > [@](#): > > A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: > > When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart (CCC 2368). I love reading Catholic rules on human sexuality, so romantic. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/50 "2016-09-25T14:32:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That is indeed the case that I knew of, and I would dispute that it “doesn’t really count”. They might not intend to have contracepted intercourse, but they do intend to prevent conception if it should happen that they do have intercourse. Sure. I still don’t think that qualifies as an exception, though, because the sin of contracepted intercourse doesn’t lie either in the act of “taking a pill to make oneself infertile” or “having sex that one foresees to be infertile”, it’s in the conjunction of the two. The position of the Catholic Church is that it’s wrong to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the sex act, but since the potential rape victim isn’t intending to have sex, she isn’t intending to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of any sex act, and since intent matters in Catholic moral reasoning, I don’t think this qualifies as a sin against chastity in the relevant sense. (in the case everyone talks about, nuns in the Congo were involved, and as nuns they certainly weren’t intending to have sex with anyone). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/51 "2016-09-25T14:34:24Z")
The citation of _Veritatis Splendor_ here is not well grounded. There is a huge different between undertaking an evil act so that good may result, and undertaking a morally neutral act with the intention of procuring a good result, even though an unintended secondary effect may also result. Wearing a condom is not, in and of itself, an evil act. What makes putting a condom on sinful in Catholic understanding is the intention to subsequently engage in the marital act but prevent the transmission of life. An astronaut using a “condom style” catheter, to choose a good illustration, does not act sinfully. The sin is not enclosing the penis in a wrapper. It’s doing for _for the purpose of preventing conception in the context of the marital sex act_. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/52 "2016-09-25T14:37:54Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > I think you meant “‘having sex with a condom’ is _less bad_ than ‘having sex without a condom.’” True? > > [CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH > Note on the banalization of sexuality > Regarding certain interpretations of “Light of the World”](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html) > [IOANNES PAULUS PP. II > VERITATIS SPLENDOR](http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html) > > Recent Popes are deadly serious about this: No birth control. Ever. I don’t think that disputes anything I said. It’s certainly correct that the Catholic Church has always condemned artificial control of fertility in a general sense, and that it’s more specifically condemned the Pill, the condom, etc., since Paul VI. I don’t foresee that changing any time soon. I do think there’s legitimate debate here about which kinds of immoral acts a Catholic is supposed to view as _worse_ than others. Pope-Emeritus Benedict hinted at something along those lines when he said, if a prostitute is going to have sex with a client it’s better to do so with a condom than without, but of course the only genuinely _morally good_ course would be not to have sex at all. (N.B. I’m not Catholic so this is all academic to me, but while I disagree with Catholic sexual morality I don’t think it’s self evidently silly. The conclusions follow logically from the premises, and the conclusions that the Catholic Church draws, given their premises, are generally fairly thoughtful and humane ones). ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572/53 "2016-09-25T14:39:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The citation of _Veritatis Splendor_ here is not well grounded. There is a huge different between undertaking an evil act so that good may result, and undertaking a morally neutral act with the intention of procuring a good result, even though an unintended secondary effect may also result. > > Wearing a condom is not, in and of itself, an evil act. What makes putting a condom on sinful in Catholic understanding is the intention to subsequently engage in the marital act but prevent the transmission of life. An astronaut using a “condom style” catheter, to choose a good illustration, does not act sinfully. The sin is not enclosing the penis in a wrapper. It’s doing for _for the purpose of preventing conception in the context of the marital sex act_. +100. **Bricker** says what I was trying to express regarding the Pill and rape victims, but more succinctly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-men-who-fathered-a-child-out-of-wedlock-become-roman-catholic-priests/766572.md?page=2)