Contraception and Rape?

[jwashu]

I saw this on CNA today…

*In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their revised “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”. Directive 36 states:

“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”. (1)*

How can the USCCB ok this and not “allow” contraception?!?!?

Joe

 

[pumpkinbeast]

In rape, the sperm is viewed as a foreign invader who have no right to be inside the woman’s body. Therefore, it is moral to incapacitate them. In married sex, it is a union of two persons, and that union includes fertility. Contracepting a -married- sexual act is wrong because sex MUST include both unitive and procreative aspects. Rape is NOT sex. Rape is forced, it is an invasion, and an assault that mimics the motions that a married couple would engage in, but it carries none of the same responsibilities that married sex does. Aka, the responsibility to be open to life.

Hope that helps.

 

[Dtmccameron]

In rape, the sperm is viewed as a foreign invader who have no right to be inside the woman’s body. Therefore, it is moral to incapacitate them. In married sex, it is a union of two persons, and that union includes fertility. Contracepting a -married- sexual act is wrong because sex MUST include both unitive and procreative aspects. Rape is NOT sex. Rape is forced, it is an invasion, and an assault that mimics the motions that a married couple would engage in, but it carries none of the same responsibilities that married sex does. Aka, the responsibility to be open to life.

Hope that helps.

But what about what St. Aquinas said, about rape being not-as-bad-as masturbation, sodomy, and beastiality, simply because it WAS open to life?

 

[LJN21]

But what about what St. Aquinas said, about rape being not-as-bad-as masturbation, sodomy, and beastiality, simply because it WAS open to life?

I don’t know, but Aquinas wasn’t infallible and some of his ideas about sex in general are out right wrong.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

But what about what St. Aquinas said, about rape being not-as-bad-as masturbation, sodomy, and beastiality, simply because it WAS open to life?

Technically it sort of is, but we are under no obligation to make sure it remains so, according to the current teachings of the Church. St. Aquinas would have been writing in a time when current medical treatments were not available, and thus he didn’t take them into considerations in his writings, I would assume(I haven’t actually read them, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).

 

[Dtmccameron]

I don’t know, but Aquinas wasn’t infallible and some of his ideas about sex in general are out right wrong.

…such as?

---

I doub’t Aquinas would have ever, ever advocated those things which get in the way of life. The devices are vile in and of themselves, yet here, we allow their existance in this one circumstance. Why? Because, I think, the world pressured the Bishops to do so, calling them rigid, uncompassionate, and unfeeling.

 

[LJN21]

…such as?

Intercourse during menses is immoral because the resulting offspring had more of a chance to be deformed.

Looking for the exact quote form the Summa.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Intercourse during menses is immoral because the resulting offspring had more of a chance to be deformed.

Looking for the exact quote form the Summa.

Aaaaaand? Is it so, or isn’t it? Even if it isn’t, Aquanis was taking a theological stance, not a medical one. If said intercourse would lead to deformities, how would it in any way be righteouss of the parents to opt to have the act at the time?

What’s more, the Old Testament has some words against those who have sex during that time. Something about spiritual uncleanliness!

 

[LJN21]

Not found that one yet but here are a couple that aren’t in keeping with current teaching on sexuality in marriage.

Article 7. Whether it is forbidden to demand the debt on holy days?
Objection 1. It would seem that a person ought not to be forbidden to ask for the debt on holy days. For the remedy should be applied when the disease gains strength. Now concupiscence may possibly gain strength on a feast day. Therefore the remedy should be applied then by asking for the debt.

Objection 2. Further, the only reason why the debt should not be demanded on feast days is because they are devoted to prayer. Yet on those days certain hours are appointed for prayer. Therefore one may ask for the debt at some other time.

On the contrary, Just as certain places are holy because they are devoted to holy things, so are certain times holy for the same reason. But it is not lawful to demand the debt in a holy place. Therefore neither is it lawful at a holy time.

I answer that, Although the marriage act is void of sin, nevertheless since it oppresses the reason on account of the carnal pleasure, it renders man unfit for spiritual things. Therefore, on those days when one ought especially to give one’s time to spiritual things, it is not lawful to ask for the debt.

Reply to Objection 1. At such a time other means may be employed for the repression of concupiscence; for instance, prayer and many similar things, to which even those who observe perpetual continence have recourse.

Reply to Objection 2. Although one is not bound to pray at all hours, one is bound throughout the day to keep oneself fit for prayer

 

[Dtmccameron]

Not found that one yet but here are a couple that aren’t in keeping with current teaching on sexuality in marriage.

I think you must’ve grabbed the wrong thing…How does collecting debt on holidays tie into sexuality and marriage?

 

[LJN21]

Aaaaaand? Is it so, or isn’t it? Even if it isn’t, Aquanis was taking a theological stance, not a medical one. If said intercourse would lead to deformities, how would it in any way be righteouss of the parents to opt to have the act at the time?

What’s more, the Old Testament has some words against those who have sex during that time. Something about spiritual uncleanliness!

Considering the fact conception is not possible at that time his the whole line of reasoning fails.

Actually considering his view on unjust agressores, if he knew everything we did now about how conception medical works, I don’t think it would be a huge jump for him to come to the same conclusion. On the other hand I’m not going to buy in to anything right off just because the USCCB says its okay, they aren’t infallible either.

 

[LJN21]

I think you must’ve grabbed the wrong thing…How does collecting debt on holidays tie into sexuality and marriage?

You know what the marital debt and marital act is right?

 

[kevinsgirl]

I think you must’ve grabbed the wrong thing…How does collecting debt on holidays tie into sexuality and marriage?

“debt” is being used to refer to the marriage debt…i.e. sexual intercourse

 

[LJN21]

Here it is

I answer that, It was forbidden in the Law to approach to a menstruous woman, for two reasons both on account of her uncleanness, and on account of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse. With regard to the first reason, it was a ceremonial precept, but with regard to the second it was a moral precept. For since marriage is chiefly directed to the good of the offspring, all use of marriage which is intended for the good of the offspring is in order. Consequently this precept is binding even in the New Law on account of the second reason, although not on account of the first. Now, the menstrual issue may be natural or unnatural. The natural issue is that to which women are subject at stated periods when they are in good health; and it is unnatural when they suffer from an issue of blood through some disorder resulting from sickness. Accordingly if the menstrual flow be unnatural it is not forbidden in the New Law to approach to a menstruous woman both on account of her infirmity since a woman in that state cannot conceive, and because an issue of this kind is lasting and continuous, so that the husband would have to abstain for always. When however the woman is subject to a natural issue of the menstruum, she can conceive; moreover, the said issue lasts only a short time, wherefore it is forbidden to approach to her. In like manner a woman is forbidden to ask for the debt during the period of that issue.

Lots of sersiously out dated medical knowledge in the logic of the morality going on there.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Here it is

…

Lots of sersiously out date medical knowledge in the logic of the morality going on there.

I still don’t see what’s so wrong? What’s so bad about abstaining, and not requesting the "marital debt’ to be paid whe she’ld be unable to have a child anyhow? After all, it is about the children!

I apologize for skipping over the bit about marital debt in your first reference.

But what is so wrong about not collecting the marital debt on holidays? You day should be spent in prayer and meditations not…procreation! How steadfastly you married folk hold to this one act! Can you not even hold back for one day?

No matter how wrong St. Aquinas’s medicine might have been, I’ve yet to see any fault in his theology or moral teachings.

Are you going to say that because his biology is outdated, his morality must be, too? God’s teachings seem mightily outdated in modern society! Should we abandon them aswell, simply because they don’t conform to our “enlightened” understanding of the universe?

 

[whatevergirl]

Strictly from a scientific perspective, if a person is pregnant…whether through rape or otherwise, birth control will not prevent life ONCE a baby is conceived, and if a person is raped, birth control taken after the rape will not prevent conception. The whole stance makes no sense.

 

[whatevergirl]

I still don’t see what’s so wrong? What’s so bad about abstaining, and not requesting the "marital debt’ to be paid whe she’ld be unable to have a child anyhow? After all, it is about the children!

I apologize for skipping over the bit about marital debt in your first reference.

But what is so wrong about not collecting the marital debt on holidays? You day should be spent in prayer and meditations not…procreation! How steadfastly you married folk hold to this one act! Can you not even hold back for one day?

No matter how wrong St. Aquinas’s medicine might have been, I’ve yet to see any fault in his theology or moral teachings.

Are you going to say that because his biology is outdated, his morality must be, too? God’s teachings seem mightily outdated in modern society! Should we abandon them aswell, simply because they don’t conform to our “enlightened” understanding of the universe?

The thread is about rape, not about marital sex. Why are you talking about abstaining from sex in a marriage on holy days? It has no bearing on this topic.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Strictly from a scientific perspective, if a person is pregnant…whether through rape or otherwise, birth control will not prevent life ONCE a baby is conceived, and if a person is raped, birth control taken after the rape will not prevent conception. The whole stance makes no sense.

Well, the American Bishops have to kowtow to mainstream culture somehow!​

And sorry, Whatevergirl, I kinda got into rant about St. Aquinas and theology. Didn’t mean to hijack your thread!

 

[CJ_Nick]

The thread is about rape, not about marital sex. Why are you talking about abstaining from sex in a marriage on holy days? It has no bearing on this topic.

LOL !!!

Sorry to seem to laugh in light of the OP’s topic BUT::::::)

I would also like to add this on topic contribution :

" Bananas are yellow for a reason "

Sorry, it has been that kind of a day for me ( LOL )

No disrespect intended ( Love you all )

Peace,
CJ

 

[whatevergirl]

Well, the American Bishops have to kowtow to mainstream culture somehow!​

And sorry, Whatevergirl, I kinda got into rant about St. Aquinas and theology. Didn’t mean to hijack your thread!

Mainstream culture introduced birth control though, so if a woman takes birth control after being raped, let’s say, it won’t do anything if she is already pregnant from the rapist. This is why I’m confused.