Contraception as intrinsic evil

[Willy_Jose]

Hi,
I got into an argument with a Catholic blogger who insists in his blog that contraception is morally licit, even morally demanded, in certain cases. I strongly disagreed although I admitted (in my opinion) that this must be a case where a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics may be permitted, aware that such a controversial position has not been explicitly addressed to date by the Magisterium. Here is part of his post:

*…According to Catholic moral teaching, all people can only use sex morally in the context of conjugal act of love, in other words, sex is only morally right if it is an expression of conjugal love and this can happen only within marriage. Sexual acts which are not conjugal acts of love are therefore sinful. And since not all sexual intercourses happen as conjugal acts, it follows to reason that such acts should not be fruitful.

What is given above, therefore, immediately informs us that outside conjugal love, the moral meaning of contraception is essentially different because non-married couples who engage in sexual acts are not expected to practice responsible parenthood. On the other hand, couples who engage in premarital and extramarital sex commit a graver moral offense when their sexual acts become fruitful. Hence, the use of contraceptives is morally demanded.

All couples who live together but are not married in the eyes of God, do not have the moral right to bear children and, therefore, are morally obliged to make every sexual intercourse not fruitful. (It is possible that those who are only civilly married or are married in other religious rites are married in the eyes of God as long as they vow perpetual union to each other. Only unions without intention to live together unto death are not acceptable to God.)

While prostitution is a grave moral offense, it is graver still if the sex worker gets pregnant by failing to use effective contraceptives. Moreover, the sex worker is morally obliged to protect herself from contracting STD’s or AIDS, hence, she (or her partner) is morally obliged to use effective means to protect her.*

In short he is trying to justify contraceptives in those cases. I believe he went against the fundamental teaching of contraception as an intrinsic evil.

Your thoughts?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Tell him this story…

Today or tonight sometime, a little baby is going to be born in a hospital near you. Some day, that hospital won’t be there. Neither will the city, state, country, and maybe not even the earth. But that person, that little baby will still be in existence! We are all born with immortal souls that will live forever.

What the contracepting couple are telling God is this: “We know, that by this act, it may be Your will that we create a person who will live forever. We know that this may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” How would you like to explain that to Jesus when you die and go before Him for judgement?! Not me!

 

[Brendan]

*On the other hand, couples who engage in premarital and extramarital sex commit a graver moral offense when their sexual acts become fruitful. *

Here is one of the big flaws in his argument. It presuposes that God is not actively involved in sexual acts being fruitful.

The creation of a new person requires the active participation of God, God and God alone can create the new person.

Since God does not actively participate in anything that is bad for us, let alone sinful, the fact that the conjuctal act is fruitful is actually a GIFT, not an increase in the gravity of the sin.

To take this person’s logic to it’s conclusion, it would justify murder. For example, a person who is raped experiences psycological and emotional damage. Therefore it would be a graver moral offense to have a person live through that, so a rapist should always kill their victim afterward.

This is, of course, clearly false. But it is based on the same premese. 1. That a person would not recieve Graces from God to live through the burden ( of either being a parent, or the emotional burden of rape). And largest of course, is that life is a Gift from God and no one else. It should always be viewed and treasured as such.

 

[mark_a]

Hi,
I got into an argument with a Catholic blogger who insists in his blog that contraception is morally licit, even morally demanded, in certain cases. I strongly disagreed although I admitted (in my opinion) that this must be a case where a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics may be permitted, aware that such a controversial position has not been explicitly addressed to date by the Magisterium. Here is part of his post:

…According to Catholic moral teaching, all people can only use sex morally in the context of conjugal act of love, in other words, sex is only morally right if it is an expression of conjugal love and this can happen only within marriage. Sexual acts which are not conjugal acts of love are therefore sinful. And since not all sexual intercourses happen as conjugal acts, it follows to reason that such acts should not be fruitful.

What is given above, therefore, immediately informs us that outside conjugal love, the moral meaning of contraception is essentially different because non-married couples who engage in sexual acts are not expected to practice responsible parenthood. On the other hand, couples who engage in premarital and extramarital sex commit a graver moral offense when their sexual acts become fruitful. Hence, the use of contraceptives is morally demanded.

All couples who live together but are not married in the eyes of God, do not have the moral right to bear children and, therefore, are morally obliged to make every sexual intercourse not fruitful. (It is possible that those who are only civilly married or are married in other religious rites are married in the eyes of God as long as they vow perpetual union to each other. Only unions without intention to live together unto death are not acceptable to God.)

While prostitution is a grave moral offense, it is graver still if the sex worker gets pregnant by failing to use effective contraceptives. Moreover, the sex worker is morally obliged to protect herself from contracting STD’s or AIDS, hence, she (or her partner) is morally obliged to use effective means to protect her.

I never will cease to be amazed at folks who put words in the Church’s mouth to justify their own desires.

It’s just not the Church’s responsibility to tell folks how to sin.

In short he is trying to justify contraceptives in those cases. I believe he went against the fundamental teaching of contraception as an intrinsic evil.

You are right. Good luck convincing him.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Tell him this story…

Today or tonight sometime, a little baby is going to be born in a hospital near you. Some day, that hospital won’t be there. Neither will the city, state, country, and maybe not even the earth. But that person, that little baby will still be in existence! We are all born with immortal souls that will live forever.

What the contracepting couple are telling God is this: “We know, that by this act, it may be Your will that we create a person who will live forever. We know that this may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” How would you like to explain that to Jesus when you die and go before Him for judgement?! Not me!

Problem with that though is that that implies that God was all ready to create that immortal soul and then was surprised when the couple stopped him by using contraception. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, surely He will A) Know that they’re not going to concieve so won’t go to the trouble to prepare a soul when he knows it’s pointless and B) Surely God won’t be stopped by a mere hormone which he created in the first place anyway? No contraceptive is 100% effective, so surely if God was that keen he could just override it?

Hate to kinda complicate this thread, but its a question my religious education teacher asked us to think about a few years ago.

 

[mark_a]

B) Surely God won’t be stopped by a mere hormone which he created in the first place anyway? No contraceptive is 100% effective, so surely if God was that keen he could just override it?

Hate to kinda complicate this thread, but its a question my religious education teacher asked us to think about a few years ago.

That seems like an attempt to throw back to God our responsiblity for our not trusting Him with our procreative capabilities. “Well God, if you really, really, really,reeeeaaaally wanted us to have a baby. . . . . .”

 

[Willy_Jose]

Thanks folks for all the responses.

The supporting argument goes like this: Humanae Vitae prohibits contraception only in the context of marriage. It is silent in cases of persons suffering with HIV/AIDs. So when a person afflicted with HIV uses contraceptives, the intention is not to infect the partner, so it is a different species of human act altogether which Humanae Vitae does not specifically prohibit. Therefore it is licit to use contraceptives in these cases. Indeed I was surprised that some theologians actually supported this view. He cited one (Fr Rhonheimer).

In light of this, am I right in concluding that there is a legitimate diversity of views in this area?

 

[mark_a]

Thanks folks for all the responses.

The supporting argument goes like this: Humanae Vitae prohibits contraception only in the context of marriage. It is silent in cases of persons suffering with HIV/AIDs. So when a person afflicted with HIV uses contraceptives, the intention is not to infect the partner, so it is a different species of human act altogether which Humanae Vitae does not specifically prohibit. Therefore it is licit to use contraceptives in these cases. Indeed I was surprised that some theologians actually supported this view. He cited one (Fr Rhonheimer).

In light of this, am I right in concluding that there is a legitimate diversity of views in this area?

I would not hold my breath waiting on anything from the Vatican. We’ve been around long enough to know that once that door is opened. . . . .

Much as how Protestantism ran amuck with the Lambeth Council teachings about contraception.

 

[Seeker2010]

How would you like to explain that to Jesus when you die and go before Him for judgement?! Not me!

Care to explain how a God that can impregnate someone without that person even having sex in the first place is gonna be foiled by a little latex?

 

[Ron_Conte]

“4. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.”

Pontifical Council for the Family
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Any teaching that has been always taught by the Church, and any teaching of the Church that is definitive and irreformable, is an infallible teaching and a required belief.

 

[Alindawyl]

Care to explain how a God that can impregnate someone without that person even having sex in the first place is gonna be foiled by a little latex?

God isn’t foiled by latex. He is foiled all the time, however, by the exercise of our free will. Otherwise our will wouldn’t be free.

Use of contraception = willful disobedience
Fiat of Mary = willful obedience

Quite a big difference there.

 

[Willy_Jose]

“4. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.”

Pontifical Council for the Family
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Any teaching that has been always taught by the Church, and any teaching of the Church that is definitive and irreformable, is an infallible teaching and a required belief.

Yes, Ron that is my own position too. The crux of the argument however, is that non-marital acts (eg. rape, HIV protection…) are different species of human acts that are not covered by “the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful” as stated by that magesterial document. Have you read Fr. Rhonheimer’s position? Look at the debates here.

americanpapist.com/ncbq/562030k671p51440.pdf
uccuyosl.edu.ar/pdf/cult_rel/hiv.pdf

It has spurned some discussion among theologians. I just want to be sure if Fr. Rhonheimer presents a legitimate argument, or if his arguments can be classified outright as definitively dissent.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes, Ron that is my own position too. The crux of the argument however, is that non-marital acts (eg. rape, HIV protection…) are different species of human acts that are not covered by "the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful" as stated by that magesterial document. Have you read Fr. Rhonheimer’s position? Look at the debates here.

americanpapist.com/ncbq/562030k671p51440.pdf
uccuyosl.edu.ar/pdf/cult_rel/hiv.pdf

It has spurned some discussion among theologians. I just want to be sure if Fr. Rhonheimer presents a legitimate argument, or if his arguments can be classified outright as definitively dissent.

The teaching of the Magisterium is that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. The teaching is often phrased as ‘marital act’ because the Church has already long condemned non-marital sexual acts. HV considered the question as to whether married couples could use contraception.

The basis for the condemnation of contraception is that every sexual act, to be moral, must have a threefold moral object that is marital, unitive, and procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these three aspects makes the act intrinsically evil. So it is not correct to say that if a sexual act is non-marital, that it can morally also be non-unitive or non-procreative. The act becomes more disordered, and therefore more sinful, if more than one aspect of the moral object is absent. An act of premarital sex is a grave sin; an act of premarital sex using contraception is even more gravely immoral because it has a greater deprivation.

Fr. R. makes this argument:
“a married man who is HIV-infected and uses the condom to protect his wife from
infection is not acting to render procreation impossible, but to prevent infection.
If conception is prevented, this will be an—unintentional—side-effect and will
not therefore shape the moral meaning of the act as a contraceptive act.”

His argument is contrary to Catholic teaching on morality as found in Veritatis Splendor, so it is dissent.

There are three fonts of morality:

1. intention - the intended end or purpose for choosing the act
2. moral object of the intentionally chosen act
3. circumstances, especially reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences

When the moral object is evil, neither a good intention, nor dire circumstances, can cause the act to be moral. The act is intrinsically evil.

A common point of misunderstanding is the role of intention in the moral object. The moral object is the end, in terms of morality, toward which the chosen act is inherently ordered. If that end is a moral evil, then the act is inherently morally disordered and therefore intrinsically evil. The chosen act is always intentionally chosen, but this differs from the intention (intended purpose) for choosing the act. A good intention, such as to prevent disease transmission, or dire circumstances, such as the harm done by transmission of the disease, cannot justify the intentional choice of an intrinsically evil act. So the term ‘intentionally rendered unfruitful’ refers to the intentional choice of an act that deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning, not to the intended end.

Neither can a good intention change the moral object so that an act of contraception (e.g. use of a condom) becomes somehow non-contraceptive. Intention and moral object are separate fonts. Contraception is not an unintended side effect of using a condom. The deprivation of the procreative meaning is the moral object of that type of act, regardless of intention or circumstances. The intentionally chosen act is disordered, even when there is a good intended end. Moreover, a good intended end cannot justify an evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC, n. 1756.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

 

[Willy_Jose]

Ron,
Thank you very much. Those are very good points.

I was surprised that there was actually an ongoing debate on the matter, and coming from Fr. R,. who is a well-respected figure in moral theology. It appears also that some Cardinals appear to support some of his views.

msnbc.msn.com/id/12424425/

In view of the ongoing debate, would you think that a papal pronouncement is in order that asserts and flat-out clarifies in detail the teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception? (with specific pronouncements directly addressing the issues that Fr R. raised). He posted his article in the Tablet, the international Catholic Weekly.

thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

Otherwise, I believe the debate, even among faithful Catholics, might go on and it is gravely confusing.

 

[BobAdsit]

God isn’t foiled by latex. He is foiled all the time, however, by the exercise of our free will. Otherwise our will wouldn’t be free.

Use of contraception = willful disobedience
Fiat of Mary = willful obedience

Quite a big difference there.

What a simple and clear post Alindawyl. Most of the other points being made in thread miss the simple construct that you pose. It has nothing to do with circumventing God’s will because we can’t! It’s that we are being willfully disobedient. We reject God’s gift when we use contraception, telling God that we, better than Him, know best when we are to have children.