Eucharist and contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dugtrio1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I was being mildly tongue in cheek in my expression - though it is fairly clear Pup7 has never had a serious conversation on the matter from a trained moral theologian nor undertaken serious private study of relevant Magisterial docs.

it is inconceivable that anyone could be coming out with the views she is confidently proposing as Church teaching on the matter if she had.

Sure its a free world to throw out one’s own views here.
But the over-confidence and inability to accept the possibility of the fairly clear weaknesses in her understanding of easily verified Church expressions and Church teaching in this area is concerning.

Saying such advice to others is simply “between oneself and God” is also disturbing I suggest.
Its not the sort of thing one expects to hear from a Catholic who declares he/she is loyal to Church teaching. One also has an obligation to be informed to the level required for one’s role in life.

PlanB cannot be supported (for use by Catholics who care) if the medication involved is known to prevent implantation of a fertilised egg and one believes fertilisation has likely taken place. I am not an expert in time periods and whether that can be determined by tests…but if it can be determined then the act to take the medication would be objectively immoral.

http://www.catholicnews.com/service...ishops-rule-on-plan-b-for-rape-acceptable.cfm

In this article the issue is not whether implantation has taken place.
The issue is whether fertilisation has taken place.

If fertilisation has taken place then regardless of whether or not implantation has taken place the zygote may not be interfered with in any way. To inhibit implantation is immoral and currently named “abortion” by the Catholic Church. It is acceptable to prevent fertilisation.

In 2001, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued directives for Catholic health care that said raped women could be treated with “medications that prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilization” when conception had not occurred, but ruled out treatments aimed at "the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

My reading of Pup7 is that she is completely unaware of these distinctions - as are the priests who allegedly advised her.
 
Well if loyal Catholics ask you for Church teaching on the matter you are in fact not providing accurate information. If you find yourself in that situation you have a dire responsibility to accurately inform yourself.

A number of us here are observing you are well over the white line.
You seem unable to take that on board as a possibility because of your high regard for your medical training. I can only repeat that your Catholic moral training does not match your medical training.

There is nothing more to be said if you still disagree.
It may mean you are what is technically called “invincibly ignorant”.
As a Catholic I find your responses to these concerns of your Catholic peers disturbing.
 
Last edited:
Tatum
Can I ask you what does the church say on ectopic pregnancy?
Thanks.
 
So is the pill abortive then if it only inhibits implantation?

Sorry I know I’m jumping back to the contraceptive pill not the plan b pill.
 
Last edited:
Not in terms of direct Magisterial or USCCB statements but removal of the tube (with fertilised egg) is not intrinsically evil and usually considered moral. The problem is there is no other technique yet that can reliably save the zygote and the mother.

The principle of double effect is often used as the rationale for justifying such procedures (“indirect intention”). Personally I don’t think the PODE works in this case. It doesn’t matter. If the Church says its acceptable its acceptable even if we don’t have a good ethical rationale for it.
 
That is my understanding.
The word probably doesn’t matter - but it is immoral to interfere with a fertilised egg and inhibiting implantation does just that.

Having said that its worse than marital contraception but less grave than abortion after implantation I believe.
 
Its hard to argue that killing the zygote is not the chosen means for saving the mother.
That is, to pretend that we are just removing 2cm of fallopian tube and pretending it isn’t because there is a zygote inside that section … just doesn’t seem to work for me!

The PODE is actually a fairly new philosophic “protocol”. Theologians and moral philosophers argue all the time over whether there are 3 or 4 conditions involved. The sticking point is that the negative act must not be the means to gaining the greater benefit sought.

Aquinas invented the original basis for the PODE. However he did not identify the “means” condition as necessary. That came 100s of years later. I have always found that curious.
 
Last edited:
the word abortive to me means one is actively and directly destroying a fertilised egg.
You would include inhibiting implantation in this category?
 
I think there could be two ways out of this:
  1. Perhaps the intent is to stop the effects of the zygote on the Fallopian tube so you’re really only aiming at removing the tube. (Not perfectly satisfying but may get there)
  2. The zygote has no chance of going to full term?
 
Pup7 said:
That depends on if I’ve actually done it.

As I said, this is between God and me. It’s truly none of your business. Please, go mind your own and not mine.
Click to expand...
You are the one raised the subject. You stated categorically you would give Plan B to a rape victim. That contradicts Church teaching. Even if you have not actually done it yet you publicly stated your INTENTION.
 
Well we start getting into subtle distinctions between active and passive acts I suppose.
Not doing something or introducing a chemical that means implantation is inhibited, and we know that will happen, is still an act of will.

So yes, if eating too much chocolate was known to seriously inhibit implantation…then choosing to eat too much chocolate precisely for that purpose would be immoral - and the act, strictly speaking, called “abortion” if it succeeded I suppose.

I agree that this form of immorality is significantly different in gravity from that of post implantation abortion.

The problem is its a relatively recent distinction in the moral theology of the Church (probably understood only in the last 100 years). We need a different word for it but maybe that wont come about for another 100 or 200 years. “Contragestation” seems to be used by some.
 
I believe PlanB is acceptable if it only involves sperm incapacitation or inhibits ovulation.
The issue seems to be that many health officials don’t care to do the tests needed to verify whether fertilisation has actually taken place.

books.google.co.nz

Health Care Ethics

Health Care Ethics is a comprehensive study of significant issues affecting health care and the ethics of health care from the perspective of Catholic theology. It aims to help Christian, and especially Catholic, health care professionals solve concrete problems in terms of principles rooted in...
books.google.co.nz
 
Its difficult alright. The Church has a clear answer (its moral) but not a clean explanation for that conclusion.

(Even if a zygote cannot go to full term we still cannot directly kill innocent life).
Perhaps we could argue the zygote is not “innocent” - but no one seems to want to go there.
 
Thanks for your time in all your answers.

What does the church say on performing an abortion in order for mother to have chemotherapy for cancer?
 
That book says that for rape cases then a small risk of inhibiting implantation is acceptable.
How does that make sense?
So is the inhibiting implantation ok in some cases but not in other cases?
 
Tatum said:
Yes I was being mildly tongue in cheek in my expression
Click to expand...
No, you were making up a story to bolster a point you were trying to make. There is nothing “tongue in cheek” about that. If that is what you need to do to make a point, then at least own it.

I am not going to address any of the other points you make. I am not an expert in this issue. I am agnostic and have no problem whatsoeveer with Plan B, so it would not be appropriate for me to debate that with you here.

When someone says “It is between me and God”, then you are out of gas. That is the end of the line. Because, at the end of the day, that is where everything lands. If I were you, I would be careful about judging people’s consciences the way you have done @Pup7 's . God doesn’t smile on that. Unless you are a clergy, you need to stay in your own lane. And don’t make up stories and then try to say you were joking. Unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
If you want and so that you can be sure if you ever come onto a thread where I say that I am an EMT, I will post my Emergency Medical Technician license for you.

This way you can be assured that I am who I say I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top