Can the Church allow contraception?

[kyrie03]

Natural Law is the law imprinted by God in humans. It is the inclination or desire ordered toward a an end that God wishes us to achieve or desire. St Thomas Aquinas lays out the 3 categories of Natural Law: 1) Natural inclination of our being as it is (example: desire to keep bodily integrity - to keep healthy, not to chop off fingers, or otherwise mutilate our bodies. 2) Inclinations common with other animals (examples: food and reproduction) 3) Inclinations proper to human reasoning (examples: pursuit of truth and knowledge of God.).
Use of contraception violates all 3 categories. 1) It modifies or mutilates our human faculties of reproduction chemically, mechanically or physically. 2) As Paul VI in HV tells us, the 2 ends of the sexual act are generative and unitive and it is gravely sinful to thwart or separate. (IVF is sinful because it separates the procreative from the unitive end of the act). 3) It’s against truth and reason -a denial of the reality that the generative structure in humans is ordered for the specific purpose of begetting children.
Any act of contraception is gravely sinful as been taught by the Catholic Church for 2 millennia. Not one Church Father proposed differently. Even the Protestants held contraception to be “intrinsically evil” until the Lambeth conference of 1920. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii reminded us that humans tend to rationalize inclinations and the illiitness of contraception is not private judgement but actual revealation regarding faith and morals from the teaching Church. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae reaffirmed the Church’s infallible teaching on contraception.
For a good sermon on contraception that explains it in context of Natural Law http:www.sensustraditionis.org. Scroll down to contraception and pay by offering a decade of rosary for intentions of the priest (he’s legit, in union with the Catholic Church).

 

[Rau]

The Church cannot teach that the human act of contraception is now a moral act (in nominated circumstances).

 

[kyrie03]

The Church cannot teach that the human act of contraception is now a moral act (in nominated circumstances).

You keep insisting that contraception is licit in nominated circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
2. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and 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 frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]

Compliments of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii

 

[ericc]

I believe an exception was made for Congo in Africa. Nuns were systematically raped and the Pope allowed oral contraceptives for them. Abortion is still disallowed if pregnancy occurred in spite of the contraceptives.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/

Contraceptive being viewed as an act of self defense to resist the act altogether.

 

[kyrie03]

I believe an exception was made for Congo in Africa. Nuns were systematically raped and the Pope allowed oral contraceptives for them. Abortion is still disallowed if pregnancy occurred in spite of the contraceptives.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/

Contraceptive being viewed as an act of self defense to resist the act altogether.

Yes, that’s the controversy. CAN contraception ever be lawful. Contraception doesn’t defend against rape. It defends against a new life. It has been infallibly defined as an intrinsic evil. The whole African nuns permitted to use contraception is false. (read in other threads)
Read Pope Pius XI’s infallible teaching regarding it.

 

[Rau]

You keep insisting that contraception is licit in nominated circumstances.

Rubbish. I’ve never suggested any such thing.

 

[Rau]

Yes, that’s the controversy. CAN contraception for purposes of preventing life ever be licit?
Read Pope Pius XI’s infallible teaching regarding it.

Must I say again that the Congo nuns - if the story is true that they took a drug with contraceptive effect in fear of rape - did not commit the moral act of contraception.

Rape continues after the rapist withdraws. The progress of the rapists semen is a continuation of the process of rape and terminating that process is perfectly licit, and not the moral wrong of contraception.

The Church has defined and taught the wrong of contraception in a context - the context of married persons in fact. It is not possible to commit that wrong as a victim of rape, where there were no conjugal relations with which to interfere.

One of these recent threads provided a theologian’s explanation on exactly the same lines, in case my explanation is insufficient for you.

 

[Rau]

I believe an exception was made for Congo in Africa. Nuns were systematically raped and the Pope allowed oral contraceptives for them. Abortion is still disallowed if pregnancy occurred in spite of the contraceptives.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/what-did-pope-francis-actually-say-about-contraception-47196/

Contraceptive being viewed as an act of self defense to resist the act altogether.

It was not really an exception per se, just the recognition that taking the drug in the context of potential rape does not conform with our definition of the moral wrong act of “contraception”. It was an “act to avoid a pregnancy” (Francis used those words), but was not the moral wrong of contraception - essentially because:

• the rape does not involve conjugal relations, but rather a violent abuse of another person;
• the victim is entitled to defence at all stages of that abuse.

As you say, the victim has no right to abort a child.

And using a contraceptive drugs to avoid the risk of a Sika baby *would be *the moral wrong on contraception.

 

[kyrie03]

Rubbish. I’ve never suggested any such thing.

I apologize -I’ve misunderstood you!
I see now you stated it CANNOT be considered licit. My fault

 

[kyrie03]

It was not really an exception per se, just the recognition that taking the drug in the context of potential rape does not conform with our definition of the moral wrong act of “contraception”. It was an “act to avoid a pregnancy” (Francis used those words), but was not the moral wrong of contraception - essentially because:

• the rape does not involve conjugal relations, but rather a violent abuse of another person;
• the victim is entitled to defence at all stages of that abuse.

As you say, the victim has no right to abort a child.

And using a contraceptive drugs to avoid the risk of a Sika baby *would be *the moral wrong on contraception.

Contraception means to prevent pregnancy. If you label prevention of pregnancy “self defense” it’s still prevention of pregnancy. See first post in thread and help me understand how it does not violate the natural law.

 

[kyrie03]

Rau, are you trying to convince me that contraception only applies to conjugal relations?

 

[kyrie03]

Must I say again that the Congo nuns - if the story is true that they took a drug with contraceptive effect in fear of rape - did not commit the moral act of contraception.

Rape continues after the rapist withdraws. The progress of the rapists semen is a continuation of the process of rape and terminating that process is perfectly licit, and not the moral wrong of contraception.

The Church has defined and taught the wrong of contraception in a context - the context of married persons in fact. It is not possible to commit that wrong as a victim of rape, where there were no conjugal relations with which to interfere.

One of these recent threads provided a theologian’s explanation on exactly the same lines, in case my explanation is insufficient for you.

I cannot follow the logic of rape continuing after the rape has ceased. That’s a stretch of justification to be clarified in light of the natural law and the deposit of Faith

 

[Rau]

Rau, are you trying to convince me that contraception only applies to conjugal relations?

I’m trying to point out it is inapplicable to rape.

 

[kyrie03]

I’m trying to point out it is inapplicable to rape.

Are there other instances where contraception (or as you label it “self defense”) might be licit?

 

[Rau]

Contraception means to prevent pregnancy. If you label prevention of pregnancy “self defense” it’s still prevention of pregnancy. See first post in thread and help me understand how it does not violate the natural law.

There are licit ways to “prevent pregnancy”. Taking (and fulfilling) a vow of celibacy prevents pregnancy. It is not contraception - thus, contraception does not mean “to prevent pregnancy”.

Hysterectomies prevent pregnancy too. They may or may not (in conjunction with subsequent conjugal relations) amount to an act of contraception.

It is not sufficient to simply examine the “physical” (observable) act and then determine what moral act is committed.

Explain to me why you believe the forced violation of a woman by a man ceases the moment he physically withdraws, but his semen remains? How is the wrongful presence of his semen, and the potential claim on the woman’s egg, not a continued violation? [The situation takes a step change after conception for reasons about which we have no disagreement.]

Would there be a difference if the man violated her with a turkey baster filled with semen rather than his penis?

 

[Rau]

Are there other instances where contraception (or as you label it “self defense”) might be licit?

The act is particular to the circumstances. Defence arises in the context of an attack. We call such attacks rape.

 

[Rau]

I cannot follow the logic of rape continuing after the rape has ceased. That’s a stretch of justification to be clarified in light of the natural law and the deposit of Faith

You have what to me is a strange notion that the phase of rape where the perpetrator is present physically violating the victim is the only violation. It’s as if the uninvited semen (a part of the rapist) travelling in the victim’s body is a holy thing, not to be interrupted. That is just bizarre.

Presumably you hold that rape victims should take no action to rid themselves of this semen?

 

[Rau]

So this is true, the nuns were really taking The Pill?
But this makes no sense!
Isn’t a baby conceived “God’s will” no matter how it happens???

I note the dripping sarcasm…

The baby is a human treasure, no matter how conceived. The act that gave rise to the conception…well, in some cases, it’s simply a crime.

As to the nuns, no one seems to sure whether they took the (then) Pill or not. There would be no immorality if they did, as explained at length.

 

[kyrie03]

Please, it is unnecessary to be so visual in your descriptions. I’m a newbie here and wasn’t aware discussing Church doctrine could become so graphic.

I can no longer comment on rape.

I’m simply trying to understand how to conform my reasoning and actions to the authentic teachings of the Church as taught since Christ and suddenly open to new interpretations and justifications.

 

[Rau]

Please, it is unnecessary to be so visual in your descriptions. I’m a newbie here and wasn’t aware discussing Church doctrine could become so graphic.

I can no longer comment on rape.

I’m simply trying to understand how to conform my reasoning and actions to the authentic teachings of the Church as taught since Christ and suddenly open to new interpretations and justifications.

I don’t seek to cause you to blush (and apologies for any embarrassment caused), but, I hope, to assist you to think more deeply about “acts” which are the subject of moral judgements.

The only “new” thing here is the “pro-contraception” interpretation given to Francis’ remarks. As I’ve said - I don’t know what the heck he was really trying to say.

The point I have made about distinguishing an act with a certain physical consequence, from a **similar looking **act with that consequence as its moral object, is crucially important to assessing the morality of human acts - in particular, whether that act is intrinsically evil (ie. evil moral object) or not.