A Fornicator and the use of Condoms

[frogman80]

Prometheum_x:

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.

Right… vomiting for with wrong reasons is the evil… not the action of vomiting itself. I was imagining one who overindulges… a glutton who then vomits so that they can continue to eat more, or prevent weight gain.

That said… one cannot separate the use of a contraceptive for the purposes of preventing disease with the consequence of artificially preventing birth.

 

[LittleDeb]

fix:

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.

You are on the correct thought train here. Further reading will bring you to the destination you seek. This is what the basis of the teaching is about.

The issue of rape is different since it is not an act of sex. I know earlier someone asked how it wasn’t since it had all the earmarks of being sex. I would rather not get into full definitions if possible for the near 13 crowd but… Short definition: The male body part (or the female one for that matter) are not the only things that can be used to ‘rape.’ There are other objects used that are still rape. If you look at the definition of the word in the context of, “raping the land” it might make more sense.

This poster makes the best point using the “unjust aggressor” term. Why a raped woman has a moral right to spermicide is because she is defending herself against millions of unjust aggressors in one moment. She has the moral right to remove any part of his body (blood, saliva, etc.) from her own. Some would then ask (and have), ‘why would she not be allowed to abort under that same logic?’

Because why? All of us Catholics join in together and say, “Because a baby is not part of either body and is a distinct human being.”

I hope this wasn’t TMI for people but it seemed important to set things clear. Contraception is an issue related only to the act of sex. An interesting note to really highlight irony. Until the discovery of DNA almost no rapists used condoms. Now many use them so they don’t get caught.

 

[Catilieth]

Rome has made it very clear that contraception is always wrong, and that does not matter whether the contracepting couple are married or not. Witness all the bruhaha over aids and condom use in Africa. The official word is no condoms, no way., no how.
Humanae Vita is morally binding, and though it’s been a while since I read it, I do not recall anywhere where the distinction between contraception within marriage or outside of marriage was made. It simply said that contraception was in and of itself morally illicit.

Also, according to the NIH, condoms are not effective in preventing 6 of the 7 most common sexually transmitted diseases, and aids is one of those six not effectively prevented.
There have been excellent studies with couples (now in monogamous relationships) where one had HIV and the other was not infected. They were carefully instructed on proper use, and they had every reason to be extra vigilant. By the end of 1 year, 30% had transmitted the disease to their lover. The cause of cervical cancer in women, human papiloma virus, is the most common sexually transmitted disease among high school and college age people. Condoms are completely ineffective in protecting from infection. You are doing a disservice to promote condom use as a way to prevent disease, besides recommending a second mortal sin.

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

I really appreciate the different minds that have joined in on this thread discussion. You wealth of knowledge and understanding is sincerely extrodinary. You ladies and gentlemen set a good example for myself and others who strive to have deep level of knowledge and understanding of God’s Doctrine. And I don’t mean strive to then showboat, but to better our lives and that of others.

I likd to thank you personally,

Nelson

 

[Prometheum_x]

LittleDeb:

The issue of rape is different since it is not an act of sex. I know earlier someone asked how it wasn’t since it had all the earmarks of being sex. I would rather not get into full definitions if possible for the near 13 crowd but… Short definition: The male body part (or the female one for that matter) are not the only things that can be used to ‘rape.’ There are other objects used that are still rape. If you look at the definition of the word in the context of, “raping the land” it might make more sense.

This poster makes the best point using the “unjust aggressor” term. Why a raped woman has a moral right to spermicide is because she is defending herself against millions of unjust aggressors in one moment. She has the moral right to remove any part of his body (blood, saliva, etc.) from her own. Some would then ask (and have), ‘why would she not be allowed to abort under that same logic?’

That makes a lot of sense, and goes a long way towards reconciling my thoughts on this issue. However, I have a couple of responses – not to be annoying, but so that I can understand better:

First, if rape (the kind that might cause a woman to use a contraceptive) is not an act of sex, how then does conception take place at all? Short of ghastly “reproductive technologies”, all babies except for Jesus come as the result of sex. It isn’t good, it isn’t mutually desired, but biologically speaking, it is sex.

Second, outside of marriage, the aforementioned “unjust aggressors” have no right to be present in a woman’s body, whether it is rape or fornication, as that action is unjust in the first place and is an attack on the woman, even if she desires it. What happens if immediately post-fornication, the Holy Spirit convicts the woman of the gravity of her sin and she truly repents. She realizes that their actions were immoral and unjust to one another. Could she then use a contraceptive with a similar motive and mindset of the rape victim?

 

[Catilieth]

Prometheum_x:

Second, outside of marriage, the aforementioned “unjust aggressors” have no right to be present in a woman’s body, whether it is rape or fornication, as that action is unjust in the first place and is an attack on the woman, even if she desires it.

There are no “unjust aggressors” in fornication(only invited guests). In rape, the woman did not assent to the attack and copulation was forced upon her against her will. I don’t know of any woman that “desires” to be raped.That is not the case with fornicaton. The two are only related by exterior similarities, but they are a world apart. What might apply for one case has nothing in common with the other. That the woman now regrets having made the invitation does not change the fact that at one time she did. She would only be compounding the first mistake with a second.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Catilieth:

There are no “unjust aggressors” in fornication(only invited guests). In rape, the woman did not assent to the attack and copulation was forced upon her against her will. I don’t know of any woman that “desires” to be raped.That is not the case with fornicaton. The two are only related by exterior similarities, but they are a world apart. What might apply for one case has nothing in common with the other. That the woman now regrets having made the invitation does not change the fact that at one time she did. She would only be compounding the first mistake with a second.

Why does an invitation matter when the action is intrinsically unjust? A man has no right to have intercourse with a woman outside of marriage, even if she extends to him an invitation.

 

[fix]

LittleDeb:

You are on the correct thought train here. Further reading will bring you to the destination you seek. This is what the basis of the teaching is about.

The issue of rape is different since it is not an act of sex. I know earlier someone asked how it wasn’t since it had all the earmarks of being sex. I would rather not get into full definitions if possible for the near 13 crowd but… Short definition: The male body part (or the female one for that matter) are not the only things that can be used to ‘rape.’ There are other objects used that are still rape. If you look at the definition of the word in the context of, “raping the land” it might make more sense.

This poster makes the best point using the “unjust aggressor” term. Why a raped woman has a moral right to spermicide is because she is defending herself against millions of unjust aggressors in one moment. She has the moral right to remove any part of his body (blood, saliva, etc.) from her own. Some would then ask (and have), ‘why would she not be allowed to abort under that same logic?’

Because why? All of us Catholics join in together and say, “Because a baby is not part of either body and is a distinct human being.”

I hope this wasn’t TMI for people but it seemed important to set things clear. Contraception is an issue related only to the act of sex. An interesting note to really highlight irony. Until the discovery of DNA almost no rapists used condoms. Now many use them so they don’t get caught.

OK, very good, now what about these thoughts?

When bishop’s conferences, and the like, speak to the issue of “contraceptive” therapies post rape it may lead some to be confused. Does it make sense to define terms in specific ways, by this I mean the term contraception post rape is really a medical term and perhaps not a theological term?

In other words, women are not contracepting, which is always wrong, they are defending themselves from an unjust aggressor. That may seem only a nuance to many, but intention is critical when determining the licitness of any moral act.

 

[LittleDeb]

fix:

OK, very good, now what about these thoughts?

When bishop’s conferences, and the like, speak to the issue of “contraceptive” therapies post rape it may lead some to be confused. Does it make sense to define terms in specific ways, by this I mean the term contraception post rape is really a medical term and perhaps not a theological term?

In other words, women are not contracepting, which is always wrong, they are defending themselves from an unjust aggressor. That may seem only a nuance to many, but intention is critical when determining the licitness of any moral act.

I would agree. The problem seems to stem from semantics. While the actions may seem similar, they are completely different. I like words to mean what they really are. One of the reasons I have had so much respect for the Catholic Church is because She works so hard to define things correctly.

I used the example of spermicide in its strictly biological definition. (under the same connotation as a pesticide or herbicide.) The “icide” defining what it is killing. I try to avoid the term contraception when talking of rape since there does seem to be confusion.

The definitions the conferences have used will probably be better defined as the years progress. They mention that post rape “ovulation suppression” might be licit. At the moment I know of no suppressor that does not have abortifacient qualities. There might be one that the medical field knows, but I would still be wary of it considering how tough it is to get the medical field to reveal the whole truth.

I would hope that these terms are well defined soon. Didn’t it take something like 300 years for the Church to develop and define the term ‘trinity?’ While the concept existed from the begining it took a long time for our little human minds to wrap a word around it.

 

[LittleDeb]

Prometheum_x:

Why does an invitation matter when the action is intrinsically unjust? A man has no right to have intercourse with a woman outside of marriage, even if she extends to him an invitation.

I would almost agree except for one thing. It is possible to be raped in what appears to be a marriage. We as Catholics know that in that case a marriage did not take place, but it could appear as if it did.

Also a person who is by definition, fornicating, due to a previous sexual assault is not in the same state of sin. By lacking full consent of the will, he or she is most likely in a venial state, not mortal state.

Now it may sound like that is letting someone off the hook, but I cannot tell you how many rape survivors have been healed through this understanding. Fornication is defined by consent. Scripture defines rape by a cry for help. Since our society is no longer structured the same way as it was in the old testament it is sometimes difficult to convince a rape survivor that consent was not given even if she cooperated to save her life.

While I agree that no one has the right to sex outside of marriage, I would hesitate to define any form of fornication as some type of mutual rape. I don’t think that is an intent but it could make things confusing.

Sorry to get OT there. I figured since some people who are currently fornicating are assault survivors it was still appropriate.

 

[Catholic2003]

I would like to understand the concept of “more sinful” better. When I first started considering this question, my gut reaction was that fornication was a mortal sin with or without contraception, so what difference does it make?

I haven’t seen anything further about these “levels” of hell or heaven. Is there any clear Church teaching about what “more sinful” really means?

Here are some off-the-wall hypotheticals: If a rapist wears a condom in order to prevent conception or lessen the chance of spreading disease, it would seem that he is lessening his sin of rape. However, if a rapist wears a condom in order to avoid getting caught though DNA evidence, it would seem that he is worsening his sin of rape. Or maybe he is sinning the same regardless?

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

Why does an invitation matter when the action is intrinsically unjust? A man has no right to have intercourse with a woman outside of marriage, even if she extends to him an invitation.

While we have no right to sin, we do have free will. If we consent to sin, why would the sperm be an unjust aggressor? The act is saying one accepts the sperm.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

I would like to understand the concept of “more sinful” better. When I first started considering this question, my gut reaction was that fornication was a mortal sin with or without contraception, so what difference does it make?

I haven’t seen anything further about these “levels” of hell or heaven. Is there any clear Church teaching about what “more sinful” really means?

Here are some off-the-wall hypotheticals: If a rapist wears a condom in order to prevent conception or lessen the chance of spreading disease, it would seem that he is lessening his sin of rape. However, if a rapist wears a condom in order to avoid getting caught though DNA evidence, it would seem that he is worsening his sin of rape. Or maybe he is sinning the same regardless?

Interesting. If you follow Deb’s reasoning, which I think is correct, both examples still reveal the contraceptive act would be sinful.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

Interesting. If you follow Deb’s reasoning, which I think is correct, both examples still reveal the contraceptive act would be sinful.

How so? She stated that rape isn’t an act of sex, as it does not involve consent.

 

[Prometheum_x]

fix:

While we have no right to sin, we do have free will. If we consent to sin, why would the sperm be an unjust aggressor? The act is saying one accepts the sperm.

While it is being consented to, yes. I am trying to consider what would happen if post-act the woman was convicted of that sin and repented of it, and ceased to give her consent to accepting the sperm.

 

[Prometheum_x]

LittleDeb:

I would almost agree except for one thing. It is possible to be raped in what appears to be a marriage. We as Catholics know that in that case a marriage did not take place, but it could appear as if it did.

While I agree that no one has the right to sex outside of marriage, I would hesitate to define any form of fornication as some type of mutual rape. I don’t think that is an intent but it could make things confusing.

I wouldn’t want to define it in that way either. I think the injustice of rape is far greater, or even in a different category, because not only is it outside of marriage, but it is done over and against the will of the other person.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

How so? She stated that rape isn’t an act of sex, as it does not involve consent.

I guess you have a point. If it is a rape, then I can see the argument that a condom would be licit as it would not be contraception.

 

[fix]

Prometheum_x:

While it is being consented to, yes. I am trying to consider what would happen if post-act the woman was convicted of that sin and repented of it, and ceased to give her consent to accepting the sperm.

Another interesting question. I think would would have to examine the state of mind of the woman.

 

[LittleDeb]

The reasoning above is correct. I know it is hard to believe but there are many rapists who give the option of a condom to their victim. The most obvious is of course date rapists, but other ones such as serial rapists will give the option of, “If you don’t struggle I will use a condom.” In their sick, twisted mind they are doing their victim a favor and also getting a weird sort of consent.

A Catholic who agreed to a condom would not be sinning. It is not contraception, especially in the case of a man as the victim of another man.

As has been stated by the Magisterium, it is intentional contraception that is intrinsically evil. It does not say contraceptive devices are evil.

I would guess that a repentent rapist would only need to be absolved of the sin of rape and not the sin of contraception. That is just a guess though.

 

[Prometheum_x]

LittleDeb:

The reasoning above is correct. I know it is hard to believe but there are many rapists who give the option of a condom to their victim. The most obvious is of course date rapists, but other ones such as serial rapists will give the option of, “If you don’t struggle I will use a condom.” In their sick, twisted mind they are doing their victim a favor and also getting a weird sort of consent.

A Catholic who agreed to a condom would not be sinning. It is not contraception, especially in the case of a man as the victim of another man.

As has been stated by the Magisterium, it is intentional contraception that is intrinsically evil. It does not say contraceptive devices are evil.

I would guess that a repentent rapist would only need to be absolved of the sin of rape and not the sin of contraception. That is just a guess though.

The easiest way to avoid that moral quandary is just to avoid being a rapist I suppose. . . .