Condoms and Humanae Vitae

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a quote from an article:

"Thus, according to the U.S. Catholic Bishops in their Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a woman “who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault” (Directive 36). She is not obliged when raped, as would be the case in consensual relations, to accommodate the natural potential for conception. The forced introduction of sperm is an act of aggression she may resist even through means that prevent the creation of new life. That explains why Catholic hospitals may distribute contraceptives in some rape cases, particularly within 24 hours after the assault. Immediate care is essential as well to address issues related to the transmission of venereal disease and for appropriate and compassionate trauma counseling.

However, if it is determined that a particular rape treatment would “have as [its] purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation” of an embryo (Directive 36), a Catholic facility cannot offer it. A human life conceived by rape is not an act of aggression but a new person innocent of any wrongdoing. Some contraceptives may act as abortifacients by preventing implantation. Forcing Catholic hospitals to offer contraceptives in rape cases when an early abortion may result conflicts with the religious and ethical duty to do no harm. That explains why Catholic hospitals cannot offer or distribute contraceptives in every rape case and why S. 546 is objectionable."

Peace,
Ed
 
NewEnglandPries
The Church has been pretty clear that contraceptives are morally permissible in cases of rape. By your logic, if contraceptives are always intrinsically evil and never morally irrelevant, how do you explain this stance of the Church?
Click to expand...
Contraception is intrinsically wrong and a grave sin.
Since rape is intrinsically evil, a grave sin and a grave violation of human dignity, a condom may be used to avoid the effects of that evil.

Contraception by any deliberate thwarting of the marital act, by condoms or other barriers, is a grave sin.
 
Abu said:
Contraception is intrinsically wrong and a grave sin.
Since rape is intrinsically evil, a grave sin and a grave violation of human dignity, a condom may be used to avoid the effects of that evil.

Contraception by any deliberate thwarting of the marital act, by condoms or other barriers is a grave sin.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, you can’t use an intrinsic evil to fight against another intrinsic evil.
 
NewEnglandPries
Technically speaking, you can’t use an intrinsic evil to fight against another intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
It’s not technical it is moral. A condom is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage.
Post # 15:
As Dr Jeff Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”

Also see by Dr Mirus:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179
“Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant.” [My underlining].
 
Abu said:
It’s not technical it is moral. A condom is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage.
Click to expand...
I think you’re misunderstanding me. You posted: “Contraception is intrinsically wrong and a grave sin. Since rape is intrinsically evil, a grave sin and a grave violation of human dignity, a condom may be used to avoid the effects of that evil.”

Based on that post, it appeared you were claiming that contraception in a case of rape was still an intrinsic evil. If that’s true then contraception cannot be used in cases of rape. However, if contraception was morally neutral in cases of rape then we’d really be onto something.
And besides, in cases of rape the contraceptive is rarely a condom but rather a nonabortificient pill given in the ER.
 
As Dr Mirus argues:
“…outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”
“Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant…”

From this, a condom in rape is “morally irrelevant.”
 
Self-styled Truthlover is mesmerized by condoms, promotes condomistic intercourse in marriage, and knows the definitive and infallible doctrine against this in *Casti Connubii *and in Humanae Vitae.

In the Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 1993, Pope John Paul II teaches:
“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general’ ”.133
[My underlining].
Note:
133. Encyclical Letter *Humanae Vitae *(July 25, 1968), 14: AAS 60 (1968), 490-491.

So he should know that condomistic intercourse in marriage “rape” is intrinsically evil in the perpetrator.
 
Self-styled Truthlover, who habitually mangles truth, claims not to know that condoms in marriage are gravely sinful and intrinsically evil (Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 1993, Pope John Paul II, #80).
  1. His convoluted dilemma omits the underlined “condomistic intercourse in marriage” qualifying “ ‘rape’ is intrinsically evil in the perpetrator.” (Post #28).
  2. His convoluted dilemma omits the underlined “Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant…”
    “From this,” qualifying “a condom in rape is ‘morally irrelevant.’ ” (Post #26).
He reflects the condom mania of the media.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=735
Phil Lawler:
Why didn’t he (the Pope) condemn the drive to accept recreational sex, and rely on condoms for safety? Why didn’t he say something like this:

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

The above paragraph, of course, is exactly what Pope Benedict did say—in the paragraph directly preceding the one that’s caused all the fuss. Find it on page 119 of Light of the World.
 
Here are some Catholic articles pertinent to your discussion.
The USCCB fact sheet pre-dates the recent interview with the Pope,
but is still relevant to the discussion.

USCCB fact sheet with references:
“Researchers Agree with Pope Benedict: Condoms Can Worsen the AIDS Pandemic in Africa”
usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/condoms_factsheet.pdf

WHY ARE THE MEDIA FIXATED ON CONDOMS?
An Appeal to Focus on Negatives of Reckless Sexuality
By Janet E. Smith
zenit.org/article-31127?l=english
 
Abu said:
  1. “condomistic intercourse in marriage” qualifying “ ‘rape’ is intrinsically evil in the perpetrator.” (Post #28).
  2. “Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant…”
    “From this,” qualifying “a condom in rape is ‘morally irrelevant.’ ” (Post #26).
Click to expand...
You appear to be saying that 1) use of a condom in rape is morally irrelevant unless 2) within marriage in which case the use of condom for rape is intrinsically evil.

Your reason for 1) is that “Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant…”

It would, therefore, logically follow that rape within marriage means that such “sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant…”

Hence, it appears that in the case of rape within marriage contraception is permissible.
 
Truthlover
it appears that in the case of rape within marriage contraception is permissible.
Click to expand...
By whom? No doctrine teaches this. Contraception in marriage is intrinsically evil, and no doctrine allows it for AIDS or anything else.

Sexual relations outside of marriage are disordered – because they are fornication or adultery – not ordered to the husband and wife union of marriage ordained by God.

The marriage bond is not broken by abuse, but grounds for nullity exist by a permanent refusal of intercourse.
Abuse of anyone is evil, and rape in marriage is objectively a grave abuse. Thwarting the unitive end of marriage (love) by rape is one grave evil; to thwart the procreative end of marriage by a condom is another grave evil. Refusal of intercourse in marriage without a serious reason is itself a grave evil.

From Phil Lawler:
This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

The above paragraph, of course, is exactly what Pope Benedict did say—in the paragraph directly preceding the one that’s caused all the fuss. Find it on page 119 of Light of the World.
 
Contraception is intrinsically evil because it has an evil moral object, the deprivation of the procreative end toward which sexual intercourse is inherently directed. A change in circumstances or intention does not change the moral object. So contraception remains intrinsically evil in cases of extra-marital sex, or rape, or any difficult, even dire, circumstances. Neither can a good intention make any intrinsically evil act moral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top