A Fornicator and the use of Condoms

[mcliffor]

If the reason that married couples’ sex needs to be open to life is so that God can provide them with a child if he so desires, then wouldn’t any child that comes from a one night stand also be God’s decision? What about a child from a rape?

 

[Prometheum_x]

frogman80:

The last statement is in error. Contraception is not just a sin against marriage nor is it just a sin again “holy sex” … Contraception goes against natural law. It frustrates the intended purpose of man and woman coming together… whether in marriage or outside of it.

Except that man and woman are not supposed to come together in that way outside of marriage.

 

[Catholic2003]

Prometheum_x:

Except that man and woman are not supposed to come together in that way outside of marriage.

Exactly. The fornication itself is already violating the natural law concerning God’s design for sexual relations.

 

[Catholic2003]

mcliffor:

If the reason that married couples’ sex needs to be open to life is so that God can provide them with a child if he so desires, then wouldn’t any child that comes from a one night stand also be God’s decision? What about a child from a rape?

The logic of this argument would seem to suggest that the use of contraception after a rape is immoral. Since we know that this is not the case, I think there might be a flaw in this line of reasoning.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Catholic2003:

The logic of this argument would seem to suggest that the use of contraception after a rape is immoral. Since we know that this is not the case, I think there might be a flaw in this line of reasoning.

As well, the logic of the argument that contraception is a violation of natural law – period, whether in or out of marriage – would also suggest that its use is immoral after a rape.

Arguing in reverse, if contraception after a rape is not a violation of natural law, this shows that the objective nature of contraception in terms of morality can be affected by the nature of the sexual relationship in which it occurs.

So, I pose a question: If a woman is raped, is she morally justified in trying to reduce the possibility of conception after the fact?

 

[Fox]

Some people just don’t like to be told what to do, especially in the sexual circuit. Tell him the Truth, and let him decide on listening. if he doesn’t, its on him.

 

[Catholic2003]

Prometheum_x:

So, I pose a question: If a woman is raped, is she morally justified in trying to reduce the possibility of conception after the fact?

We know the answer to this question is yes from the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

1. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Edited to add: This statement demonstrates that contraception is not intrinsically evil. (Note that “intrinsically evil” means that something can never be justified no matter what the circumstances.)

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

We know the answer to this question is yes from the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services:

Edited to add: This statement demonstrates that contraception is not intrinsically evil. (Note that “intrinsically evil” means that something can never be justified no matter what the circumstances.)

Contraception is intrinsically wrong within the conjugal act. That does not mean it is evil in the case of rape which is an unjust aggressor.

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization."

So if conception has already occured due to the assualt, then nothing should be done because of the threat of causing an abortion. Ok, I now understand as that goes.

**“Contraception is intrinsically wrong within the conjugal act. That does not mean it is evil in the case of rape which is an unjust aggressor.”
**
So is rape the only case where contraceptives are not intrinsically evil? Or are there other circumstances?

**
**

 

[Catholic2003]

"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization."

So if conception has already occured due to the assualt, then nothing should be done because of the threat of causing an abortion. Ok, I now understand as that goes.

This is because abortion is intrinsically evil. No matter what the circumstances, even rape, it can never be justified.

**“Contraception is intrinsically wrong within the conjugal act. That does not mean it is evil in the case of rape which is an unjust aggressor.”
**
So is rape the only case where contraceptives are not intrinsically evil? Or are there other circumstances?

This is a misuse of the word “intrinsically”. In Catholic moral theology, something is intrinsically evil if it is always immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Direct abortion is a perfect example of this - Even the circumstance of rape does not make abortion moral.

Contraception is not intrinsically evil because its morality depends on the circumstances of its use, as we have seen above in the case of rape.

 

[Catholic2003]

fix:

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Note that this sentence is saying that “contraceptive sexual intercourse” is intrinsically wrong, not that “contraception” is intrinsically wrong. In other words, there is no possible circumstance in which contraceptive sexual intercourse could be justified.

But we knew that for cases outside of marriage anyway, because fornication and rape are both already intrinsically wrong.

No one is saying that fornication using condoms is okay. Pope Paul VI has clearly stated that it is intrinsically wrong. The question of this thread is whether it is (more sinful, less sinful, the same level of sinfulness) as the intrinsic wrong of fornication without using condoms. Or whether the idea of “more sinful” even applies here.

 

[frogman80]

Prometheum_x:

Except that man and woman are not supposed to come together in that way outside of marriage.

This may or may not be the best example:

Eating is naturally oriented to providing nourishment for our bodies. To eat food, and the purposely force yourself to vomit goes against this natural purpose. (I think most people have seen this compared to contraception)

There are days within the church where we are required to fast, or abstain from food. If a person was to purposely go against this fast, and eat, this would be sinful. To then go and force oneself to vomit out the food is also sinful. There are two separate sins here. That fact that a person sinned by ignoring the fast does not give him a free ticket to then overindulge, or then vomit.

 

[Prometheum_x]

frogman80:

This may or may not be the best example:

Eating is naturally oriented to providing nourishment for our bodies. To eat food, and the purposely force yourself to vomit goes against this natural purpose. (I think most people have seen this compared to contraception)

There are days within the church where we are required to fast, or abstain from food. If a person was to purposely go against this fast, and eat, this would be sinful. To then go and force oneself to vomit out the food is also sinful. There are two separate sins here. That fact that a person sinned by ignoring the fast does not give him a free ticket to then overindulge, or then vomit.

A good, clear analogy. If I may make an observation however:

Both of those actions have an element of dependence on circumstances in determining whether they are sinful or not. For example, while we are required to fast on such days, those who are young, or very ill, etc., are not required to fast. Thus “eating on a fast day” (as a whole) is not intrinsically sinful.

And, with vomiting, suppose we ate some food and then realized that it had been laced with some sort of poison. It would be morally justifiable (even necessary?) to vomit in order to expel the poison. It is not evil in that case by virtue of double-effect: the intent is not to expel the food but the poison; the food is vomited as a secondary effect. Thus, vomiting is not intrinsically sinful either, since it is an established natural, biological method for dealing with toxic stomach contents.

Post to follow.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Note that this sentence is saying that “contraceptive sexual intercourse” is intrinsically wrong, not that “contraception” is intrinsically wrong. In other words, there is no possible circumstance in which contraceptive sexual intercourse could be justified.

But we knew that for cases outside of marriage anyway, because fornication and rape are both already intrinsically wrong.

No one is saying that fornication using condoms is okay. Pope Paul VI has clearly stated that it is intrinsically wrong. The question of this thread is whether it is (more sinful, less sinful, the same level of sinfulness) as the intrinsic wrong of fornication without using condoms. Or whether the idea of “more sinful” even applies here.

Yes, I agree with all you stated. My post said the same thing, only in different words. The act of contracepting, within the marital act, is always an evil- no exceptions ever.

Rape is not a marital act. Contraception would be licit, not abortion, but contraception. It seems we agree to this point.

Now, I have not seen any “official” documents stating contraception outside the marital act is always wrong, but It would seem to me it is always wrong.

 

[Prometheum_x]

We know that within marriage, any sexual activity between a husband and wife necessarily must end properly. They must, “go all the way”.

An unmarried man and woman begin to sexually arouse each other. The natural end of sexual arousal and activity is full intercourse. They are sinning again, or more, or whatever, if they finish in some other way than if they proceed to full intercourse. Therefore, if unmarried people decide to have sexual relations of some sort, they are morally obligated to go all the way, just as they are morally obligated to not use a condom*.*

I hope I am not missing something obvious in my argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

Yes, I agree with all you stated. My post said the same thing, only in different words. The act of contracepting, within the marital act, is always an evil- no exceptions ever.

Rape is not a marital act. Contraception would be licit, not abortion, but contraception. It seems we agree to this point.

Now, I have not seen any “official” documents stating contraception outside the marital act is always wrong, but It would seem to me it is always wrong.

Is fornication a marital act?

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

Is fornication a marital act?

Here is what Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae:
We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means Section 14].

There are no qualifiers in this about this situation only pertaining to the case of married couples. What your friend is doing is disrupting the way God designed human sexuality to work.

Specifically, your friend is doing two things:

1. 
   *]Separating the procreative aspect of the sexual act from the act itself (i.e., contracepting), and
   *]Separating the sexual act from the marital context in which it is meant to occur (i.e., fornicating).

1. 
   Your friend’s behavior thus *is *“coming between [them and] God”–and in two ways. They are compounding the sin of fornication by adding to it the sin of contraception.
   

   Indeed, their use of contraception is facilitating their fornication. You note that the use of contraceptives is because your friend does not want “to end a sexual relationship with their partner, to avoid bringing a child into the situation.” The contraception is thus facilitating your friend’s rejection of God’s will by letting her avoid making the choice between (a) ending the sexual relationship or (b) having a baby by a man she isn’t married to. The contraception is thus a sin in itself and it compounds the sin of fornication by lengthening its duration.

   What your friend needs to do is to resolve to do what is right: End the sexual relationship and not have sex until marriage and, even then, not to use contraception.

   The above-described sins are grave matter, meaning that if they are mortal if done with adequate knowledge and consent.

   What the priest said was wrong and was a disservice to your friend.

   God will hold him accountable for it.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/contraception_o.html

   So far, this is my best cite. I am not done.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

We know that within marriage, any sexual activity between a husband and wife necessarily must end properly. They must, “go all the way”.

An unmarried man and woman begin to sexually arouse each other. The natural end of sexual arousal and activity is full intercourse. They are sinning again, or more, or whatever, if they finish in some other way than if they proceed to full intercourse. Therefore, if unmarried people decide to have sexual relations of some sort, they are morally obligated to go all the way, just as they are morally obligated to not use a condom*.*

I hope I am not missing something obvious in my argumentum ad absurdum.

I do not follow the analogy. One is obligated to cease the behavior, not compound it with further sin.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means

So far, this is my best cite. I am not done.

If what Paul VI said (above) about actions intended to prevent procreation was intended universally (instead of stated generally, assuming the context of marriage), then the instructions of the USCCB regarding the right of a raped woman to try to prevent conception are in direct contradiction to Humanae Vitae.

My inclination is to believe after the manner I have been writing, but I am fine being wrong. However, I am stuck on this logical inconsistency – they both cannot be true.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

If what Paul VI said (above) about actions intended to prevent procreation was intended universally (instead of stated generally, assuming the context of marriage), then the instructions of the USCCB regarding the right of a raped woman to try to prevent conception are in direct contradiction to Humanae Vitae.

My inclination is to believe after the manner I have been writing, but I am fine being wrong. However, I am stuck on this logical inconsistency – they both cannot be true.

I am not a moral theologian, but it may be that the case of rape is not about contraception, but about repelling an unjust aggressor. The intention is not to contracept, but to reject the aggressor ?

It seems we need to define what contraception intends? The act of rape is not mutual embrace. The act of fornication is mutual, yet illicit.

I am not sure of my argument. I want to do some more reading before defending my position any further.