Here is the traditional Catholic case for making sexual sin out to be one of the worst.

The blessed Apostle Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) that when a Christian has carnal union with a prostitute he is guilty of uniting a part of Christ with a harlot for we are all members of the body of Christ and are to be treated as if we were literally parts of Christ. He says this of no other sin so sexual sin is especially grave. Yet many Catholics want to hold that sins against justice are worse than sexual sin and bemoan the “sex-obsessed Catholicism of former days.”
When a man and woman unite in the marriage bed as husband and wife, it is the body of Christ that unites. Any sin in this union is a grave sin.
In marriage, the husband and wife become one body, they are no longer two but one. Our blessed Lord explicitly taught that (Mark 10:7-9). He said that God in the beginning made us as male and female and for this reason a man shall be joined to his wife and the two shall be one in marriage.
The joining refers to sex.  Jesus unites a man and woman who have only have had sex once in marriage and who don't even like one another. The two are still one. We can point out that it is wrong to adduce that Jesus is saying that sex is a part of God's plan and design and good. Sex may have been meant to be good but since the fall it could be bad though we have to engage in it to produce babies.
Our Lord means more than the union of bodies in the marriage bed.  He means that the husband and wife are to be as one person for life. The Lord taught in the scriptures that as it is unnatural for a man to hate his own flesh so he must love his wife (Ephesians 5:28-31). It says the Church is the body of Christ which is why he protects it so the husband should protect his wife as his own flesh. This says that monogamous marriage is natural and that the husband owns the flesh of his wife as if it were his own. Separation, divorce and adultery and living in sin without being married are unnatural sins.
The apostles during the ecumenical council of Jerusalem had to pick four rules out of the Jewish law for Gentile believers to obey as a minimum required in those difficult times. One of the rules was to abstain from fornication. That was the only moral rule in the four, the others were ritualistic. It shows how important it is to abstain from the sin of fornication. Even stealing and violence are better.
The reason marriage exists, according to God’s law, is that children may be produced and nurtured. Clearly it is more important for the husband and wife to be good at working together than for them to be in so-called love. Vatican II teaches that love is the primary end of marriage even though nobody needs marriage to love! A marriage in which the couple fail to recognise what the primary end is, procreation, is not a marriage at all.
As St Augustine said, “And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably. . . . They must not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” Marrying without intending to have children, or using contraception in marriage is a most grave unnatural sin. It is worse then than when it is when an unmarried man and woman use it.
“The Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defence of the integrity and the purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately deprived of its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Casti Connubi, (Chaste Wedlock), Pius XI, 1930
This Encyclical condemned birth control. It never specifically condemned or condoned the natural method. On the basis of the following lines many would disagree: “Nor are these considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth” Pope Pius XI Casti Connubii, The Pope however never said it was okay to knowingly have sex during the safe period. He only said it was natural to have sex if life couldn’t result because of the safe period or because the woman couldn’t conceive. More importantly, he never said that though it was natural it was acceptable to knowingly have sex under such circumstances.
It is argued that since Pope Pius XI only forbade whatever made the marriage act unnaturally unable to create life that he didn’t condemn the natural method. But what if couples were using a condom and putting a pin prick in it so that God could create life if he wished? Such a method would ensure that conception though possible wouldn’t be very likely.  The pope would have condemned such so by implication the natural method is wrong simply because it is an attempt to prevent sex resulting in life. The pope didn’t understand fully what he infallibly taught in the Encyclical and we conclude that natural family planning is a grave sin.
If you turn sex into an act of pleasure and do something to stop it producing new life, how can you forbid sex between males, between people and animals, between sons and mothers? If sex is just recreation there is no way these abominations can be rationally forbidden. You might say that incest is harmful but many practitioners don’t think so and say that they have been in accepted relationships that did damage and sometimes a lot of damage. The only way to judge the rightness or wrongness of sexual acts is in the nature of the act and not in how people feel abut it. The paedophile sees no wrong in molesting children.
Reason bids us believe that all sex should be open to life. Artificial contraception is wrong for it teaches that sex is for fun and that you don’t need to make babies. Not all such methods are equally effective. Some forms of contraception such as condoms just reduce the chance of the woman falling pregnant. But they are still forbidden. The intention is to stop having babies or at least make pregnancy very unlikely. How then can this be any different from Natural Family Planning currently taught by many in the Conciliar Church? It claims to be natural in using the safe period when conception cannot happen or is very unlikely. What is wrong with contraception is the intention to have sex for pleasure and not reproduction and this intention exists with this method. If you didn’t intend that you wouldn’t be using the method. Natural Family Planning is sinful. The Church says the pill though it doesn’t obstruct or alter the sex act in any way from its natural form like condoms do is still sinful for it is treating fertility the gift of God as if it was some kind of danger or sickness. And this despite the fact that the pill isn't 100% effective. Natural Family Planning does all that too. It teaches that fertility is to be avoided by using the time when it is absent.
Using the safe period means that sex isn’t sinful when conception is not intended. The sex is open to life but the life is not intended. Does it sound right to claim that one wants to let God create life if he so wishes but you don’t want him to? That is blasphemous. The Conciilar Church holds that contraception is wrong for only God must plan families and then it allows natural family planning! The doctrine forbidding contraception implies that you should trust God to send a child if he wishes and trust him to do the right thing. But if you trust him what you do you need the safe period for?
The safe period in what it seeks to achieve is no different to using a perforated condom that allows God to get a sperm through if he wants to cause conception and yet the Vatican II Church forbids it! Oh the blasphemous hypocrisy!
Pius XII in 1950 permitted the use of the infertile period of the month, the rhythm method, but this was only his advice to midwives. He said it was only allowed under serious circumstances such as when the mother could die from having another child. This cannot be taken as an official statement of doctrine and the Pope may have sinned in giving this direction.
The Church never gave out any clear official statements allowing natural family planning until Humanae Vitae in 1968 which unfortunately needs to be checked out for loyalty to tradition for it came from a heretical pope, Paul VI. It like Pius XII only allowed for natural family planning in severe circumstances.
When a woman is raped, is it right to destroy the attacker’s sperm or to prevent ovulation so that conception will not result?
The Church forbids a man and woman consensually engaging in sex while using contraception for it is an unnatural sin. But in rape the woman hasn’t consented.
To this, we can say that if a married woman has sex with her husband and decides it was a mistake and she should go and look for an annulment and she has treatment to destroy the sperm this is still the sin of contraception. Contraception is wrong because it is unnatural regardless of how much right we think the woman has to prevent pregnancy. The Church forbids condoms even when it is a woman protecting herself from AIDS.
If an unmarried girl has sex and she fears the birth of a child outside marriage which a great evil, even then she is not permitted to attempt to have the sperm destroyed or her ovulation postponed.
A woman can be taken advantage of in weakness without this being rape. In such cases we still forbid attempts to prevent conception. That is why arguments such as that she can have the sperm killed for it becomes unjust aggressors fail. If a woman has sex and finds out that she was wrong to think one cannot get pregnancy the first time the sperms are like unjust aggressors from that point on but we cannot allow contraception.
If a woman is raped, the sperms are not the unjust aggressors. They are only sperms. The rapist is the unjust aggressor. There is no logic in saying she can defend herself against the sperms. They were seeds made by God to create babies and God will use them for that should they be implanted in the woman by accident or by rape or in marriage or by fornication. To do anything to sperm is unnatural.
Conclusion: Every use of contraception in marriage or out is sinful.
Sacred scripture says that the marriage bed is honourable in all.
Sexuality is holy in itself for it is created by God. But however because we are fallen creatures it is never holy when we do it. We corrupt it. This is the teaching of St Augustine. We cannot bring it up to the level of holiness that God requires. So all sexuality then is sinful even in marriage and when children are planned. 

The tradition of the Church has always stated that in marriage the place for the man’s dishonourable part is in his wife’s vagina. The modern Church puts up no resistance to the fact that oral sex or oral sodomy for the mouth is not a sex organ is practiced in the vast majority of Catholic marriages. The Church cannot expect anybody to believe its teaching on homosexuality when it permits the same vice between husband and wife in marriage. It does not fight against sodomy in marriage but against contraception. To use the wrong receptacle for sex is even more evil than contraception for it is far more unnatural. The Church knows it can have no credibility with contraceptors or homosexuals when it allows natural family planning though it is as much trying to avoid conception and as open to life as contraception is. The Church is encouraging this sin of oral sodomy but in an underhand and manipulative way.
In Marriage the man is proclaimed to be the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11, Genesis 3). This teaching has disappeared from the many parishes.  So it is undeniable that the marriages they perform are not marriages at all. Catholic men who are getting married are not prepared by the Church to exercise lordship over their wives and children and wives to be are not prepared to accept their husband’s authority.
The only lawful grounds for annulling a marriage are

1 If the marriage has physically not being consummated
2 If it can be proved that the couple married under the threat of death
3 If it can be proved that one partner was insane at the time of the wedding
4 If it can be proved that one partner was already married
The doctrine that immaturity when marriage takes place is grounds for annulment is heresy for though girls were married at 12 at the time of our Lord he still said that if a woman divorces her husband she is committing adultery. The Most Blessed Virgin was validly married though she was little more than a child and God regarded her choice to have her son Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit as valid.

We conclude from all this that sex is not about sex only or any specific relationship.  It has a wider application.  Sexual sin violates many principles and has bad ramifications which is why it is so serious.  It is a unique rebellion against God.  Many would throw God and heavenly happiness away over a few moments of lust.  Such is its power.


No Copyright