If Contraception Is Immoral, What About Chewing Gum?

Of course it is. The uinitive function is still there even if the procreative function has become impossible.

The sin of contraception lies in intentionally frustrating the procreative function in order to enjoy the please without the possibility of pregnancy.

Of cause it would be incorrect to say that sexual intercourse without possibility of conception is wrong, otherwise there should be an upward age restriction on marriage, which there isn’t.

Really appreciate your answers, everyone! Thank you so much!

Since when is chewing food and not swallowing the food a mortal sin???

Chewing gum equates with the pleasure of food? Maybe if Willy Wonka made it. :wink:

A closer analogy (especially if we’re talking about contraception between a couple who aren’t married) would actually be something like going to a buffet, taking several full plates of food, chewing it up and then spitting it out without swallowing, all before leaving the buffet without paying.

Food is not to be misused in that way, and all the more a human being should not be misused. We should take as much food as we need, and we should use it for its nutritional value and for its sustenance. We shouldn’t simply chew it, enjoy its taste, and then spit it out while wasting massive quantities of it.

The fullness of the digestive system cannot be properly realized without properly using food. Likewise, the fullness of marriage cannot be realized without properly engaging in sex. But unlike the digestive system and food, marriage is not intended for everyone, and neither is sex. We admit this to some extent, such as in the case of children. But we don’t admit this as completely as we ought to.

Chewing gum can actually help prevent cavities. It encourages saliva flow which neutralizes the cavity causing acids produced by plaque bacteria.


If I recall (in)correctly, the magisterial committee appointed to examine the proposition got, umm, stuck on several key points:

  1. They couldn’t get all the Catholic dentists on board with said initiative.

  2. They couldn’t come to any agreement as to whether the actual sin was committed in the act of chewing, or


. . . whether the gave sin was committed after the chewing process had concluded . Before that impasse was reached , it had previously been presumed that, despite all governmental health warnings, the appropriate penance would’ve been to swallow one’s gum.

Subsequently, complication after complication arose and hardly any were in agreement on any one thing - with this one exception :
All committee members appointed to study the proposition were unanimous in their opinion that anyone who performed the work depicted in THIS VIDEO , or who participated in a similar work in any such way, would automatically gain a plenary indulgence.

One of the Doctors of the Church may have explored the issue.

In primary school in the early 1960s (!) a nun tried to convince us chewing gum was made from horses’ tails which had to be taken from dead horses.

Some elderly people without teeth.chew gums. :shrug:

Before the the arrival of blu-tack, second mouth chewing gum had lots of practical uses. :slight_smile:

It doesn’t show the footpath being cleaned! :confused:

. . .:hmmm: , I see your point Fiasco :Perhaps something is still afoot.

Do you think, that maybe, until such time as we do see the footpath being cleaned , we should only consider them as having gained a partial indulgence (not that I wish to* burst anyone’s bubble*) ?


Blech! THey should do DNA on all those samples and put those nasty people in prison!

I had trouble finding a photo which wasn’t too large to post in the forums. So I had to look at a lot of different photos of the same wall and attempt to post the image a lot of times (first attempts this morning, then, later this afternoon) before finally posting successfully . . .and the* yuck factor* was definitely increasing during that interval. I have to admit, it took some gumption .

But your most recent post is giving us a little food for though Allegra - in an inspirational sense. It helped get me thinking this way:

I believe , if we view though the proper lens, both the photo of the gummed up wall and the video of the wall being cleaned, it provides us with a prime analogy ; a type of Lenten reflection : If we consider the wall to be our soul and imagine every little bit of gum on the wall as a venial sin, and we picture the video of the wall being totally cleaned off as the sacrament of Confession, it really presents us with a striking visual of the quote from St. Augustine which signs Section 1863 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

“While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call ‘light’; if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.”

. . . now we have something to* ruminate *on .


If a train is going 240 km/h from Toronto to New York City how long until I eat my dinner? If you think that didn’t make sense it’s because it didn’t I don’t understand your question because it’s not an illogical question to equate chewing gum with the morality of contraceptives it doesn’t make sense you don’t understand why contraceptives are wrong to begin with. I’m not trying to be mean or anything but I think it’s kind of disrespectful to equate the two. I would say it’s especially wrong to people like me who were conceived while their mother was on contraceptives

You’re first assuming that the Church teaches that sex for pleasure is wrong, which it’s not. The reason artificial contraception is fiorbidden by the church is because the unitive property (the spiritual and physical bond between two validly married people) and procreatuve property (ordered towards procreation, which doesn’t mean intended procreation) need to both be present during sex, regardless of whether or not it’s done solely for pleasure. Contraception, according to the Church) interferes with the unitive property even more than the procreative property. This foundation applies to everyone, which is why the church forbids contraception even when married, premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, remarriage (without first an annulment if applicable)…both properties are required by the church to be present. It has nothing to do with pleasure.

Contraception is quite meaningless in the context of homosexual acts.

Can you offer a source for the part I bolded because you lost me at the claim that contraception is wrong during homosexual sex. That isn’t logical and it raises doubts that contraception is worse than extramarital sex. Specifically, where does the church say that contraception interfers with the unitive more than the procreative (even though I understand that, I still need a concrete source) and is there any writing that discusses that contraception is wrong for premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, remarriage without benefit of annulment. Because here’s the deal: if a person intends to have sex with a prostitute I would focus on not have sex with them in the first place, I might even kick them where it counts if I thought it would help. But if they are hell bent on doing it then I’m going to suggest a condom. If a prostitute has the option to wear a condom I’m also going to support that. With the former, the reason I would focus on not doing it is not just because the sex is illicit because they aren’t married but because there is increasing chance that the prostitute is trafficked and it’s not sex, it’s rape. In the latter scenario, if someone who is being exploited has any way of protecting her/himself then they should and it’s not wrong. Maybe my scenarios are outside of what you were referring to.

I know St. Thomas has written on some of this and he lost me when he suggested that rape is more correctly ordered than homosexual sex. If that was the teaching of the church I would not be Catholic. Thankfully, his writings are not binding.

I think you are missing the points that both Rence and St. Thomas Aquinas were trying to make.

Rence is arguing that birth control is sinful period. If someone is using a condom while having sexual relations with a prostitute, then they are committing two mortal sins. It’s not that one sin is worse than another, it’s that using birth control changes it from one mortal sin into two mortal sins.

In regards to St. Thomas Aquinas, he was NOT saying that rape is less sinful than homosexual sex. Rape is very evil. He was simply stating that hetorsexual rape is closer to nature than homosexual sex is. He was not discussing the level of sinfulness.

I pray this helps.

If that is what Rence was saying, okay. I know that two mortal sins can be committed, but it just doesn’t follow that two people of the same sex using a condom is contraception. That undermines the rest for me.

In regards to St. Thomas Aquinas, he was NOT saying that rape is less sinful than homosexual sex. Rape is very evil. He was simply stating that hetorsexual rape is closer to nature than homosexual sex is. He was not discussing the level of sinfulness.

I pray this helps.

And it still think that is a disgusting concept. I will never be okay with rape being natural or “closer to nature”. I wonder if he’d have the same thoughts if he has experienced sexual assault. I will never be okay with rape being natural or “closer to nature”. I’d rather have gays, and gay sex.

I see your point. You are correct, using a condom during homosexual acts is not contraception. I wonder what the National Catholic Bioethics Institute and other Catholic ethics groups would say about two men using a condom during homosexual acts?

And it still think that is a disgusting concept. I will never be okay with rape being natural or “closer to nature”. I wonder if he’d have the same thoughts if he has experienced sexual assault. I will never be okay with rape being natural or “closer to nature”. I’d rather have gays, and gay sex.

I agree it’s not a PC example and not one that people with modern sensibilities would use in daily conversation. I have to admit, I do not know the context of what made St. Thomas Aquinas state this. However, I think he was simply using a shocking statement to emphasize how unnatural homosexual acts are. Throughout history, philosophers have often used extreme examples to make a point. Therefore, I think it was nothing more than just making use of an extreme example to make his point.

God Bless.

Intercourse without possibility of conception; not a moral problem.

Intercourse while using artificial means to thwart the possibility of conception is morally forbidden.

The condom is of no relevance to the acts in question. See also post #34.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.