Hormonal contraception and rape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saya
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would have to refer to doctrine to rule out signs of contradiction. To that extent, I have little interest. Hence I leave it at the fact that it is not doctrine. Everything a bishop teaches isn’t necessarily infallible. I’m sure that there are bishops whose teachings I could point to, that would prompt you to immediately raise the same point.
 
If push comes to shove, would you say one is wrong for using contraception in the way outlined by the bishops?
 
Bruised_Reed said:
A woman being raped has zero obligation to let her rapist finish raping her.
40.png
Lea101:
even though sex has already occurred
Click to expand...
NO. Rape is not an intimate act. It’s a violent crime and a sin.

ETA: If I was raped I could defend myself with deadly force and that wouldn’t be a sin. Just some more perspective
Click to expand...
Yup, everything I said did not contradict these points.
 
Emergency contraception after sexual assault is clearly licit. It is always given to women who seek help at the hospital after rape.

Now, the interesting question is whether it is licit to use for a non-married couple? The sexual act itself is of course sinful for two unmarried persons, but would the use of contraception, emergency or other, add extra gravity to the situation?
 
Last edited:
tuffsmurf said:
The sexual act itself is of course sinful for two unmarried persons, but would the use of contraception, emergency or other, add extra gravity to the situation?
Click to expand...
I believe so, as they’re committing two sins instead of one. That being said, it’s kind of funny because if someone clearly cares enough to commit the sin of pre marital sex, why would they care enough about avoiding sin for contraception?
 
They probably wouldn’t, but it is theoretically interesting. Also, if someone went to confession for having pre-martial sex, should they confess both the fornication and the fact that they used condoms?

My guess would actually be that the use of contraception wouldn’t add any extra gravity. Contraception is wrong because it is against one of the goods of marriage, which is, producing offspring. With pre-martial sex there is no such good and therefore the concept wouldn’t apply.
 
tuffsmurf said:
Also, if someone went to confession for having pre-martial sex, should they confess both the fornication and the fact that they used condoms?
Click to expand...
Most people won’t confess the second one because they honestly don’t think to mention it, so their confessions are still valid. But that’s honestly an interesting point because if it was me, I probably won’t even think about mentioning condoms until much later.
tuffsmurf said:
My guess would actually be that the use of contraception wouldn’t add any extra gravity.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, one or ten unrepentant mortal sins will land you in hell, so I never really focus on the gravity unless it’s harm.
tuffsmurf said:
Contraception is wrong because it is against one of the goods of marriage, which is, producing offspring.
Click to expand...
Contraception is wrong because it’s the will to separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the act itself. Basically it’s about using your body in a way it wasn’t ordered to.

But I do get your POV because I probably think that too, honestly speaking. But according to what we know, it does seem like two sins as opposed to one.
 
I agree that premarital sex using contraception involves, at minimum, 2 different serious sins . Pre marital sex is a sin against chastity and contraception is a sin against God’s nature. Pre marital sex often is out of weakness and involves strong emotional feelings which can be hard to overcome. Contraceptives are usually something thought about, pre planned, purchased… and they tell God that WE will decide when we conceive. It is a terrible form of arrogance and “playing God” by deciding when we will or will not have a baby.

So yes, 100% 2 separate grievous sins.
 
I remain unconvinced. Contraception does indeed separate the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act, but when it comes to fornication, there is no unitive aspect anyway. The act is already against God’s ordinance and any use of contraception wouldn’t make it “more” against it.

In fact one could argue that the risk of spreading STD would make it more sinful to have pre-martial sex without condoms, because then you would be putting yourself and others at risk.
 
No. No one know if they will rape or not. We cannot live in fear just in case something happened. In many places, most women don’t get raped.

If it is we will take the birth control pill since our first period until menaupose.

It is not right.
 
Except that the OP did not talk about that. We are not talking about women taking birth control pills in the event she gets raped. We are talking about emergency contraception being given after the event of rape. The rape has already happened.

Here is a scenario. A woman gets raped. She has not taken any contraception before rape.

At the hospital where she is examined, it has been determined that conception has not occurred. Not yet anyway.

This is where contraception gets in the picture. She is given emergency contraception to prevent conception from ever taking place. This is licit.

A rape victim is not under any obligation to be open to life with her rapist.
 
Last edited:
ThomasMT said:
It doesnt make it doctrine )
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t define doctrine that tells women what they can do to defend themselves from rape. You are burning up a strawman.

This is the arena of moral theologians, who weigh the morality of the acts involved, and their relationships, and the outcome, and the intent of all subjects, and they come to a prudential decision about a moral course of action. They apply Church doctrine accordingly.

In the Eastern Churches, there is a principle known as economia. The disciplines and canons of the Church can be dispensed, insofar as they serve the salvation of souls in individual cases.

The United States bishops have given their Nihil obstat to this narrow method and use of contraception. Take note that this is primarily an Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic hospitals. If a woman is admitted to such a hospital and claims sexual assault, then the staff at the hospital knows their guidelines and they are empowered by the Ethics Board to put it into place.

A well-defined ERD such as this will be a sure defense against charges of medical malpractice or immorality resulting in ecclesiastical penalties such as excommunication. Once again, ERDs are not “Church Doctrine” but they are based in such doctrines, according to the judgement of responsible bishops and other moral theologians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top