If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

No I’m not upset in the slightest. I just fear you have jump through some hoops to see how avoiding pregnancy in this situation and not in others is o.k. and have made an opinion that is theologically wrong. In years of study I’ve never heard someone put up the idea that the martial act is only the martial act inside the bounds of marriage, and some how if your not married it changes the fundamental nature of the act. It goes against everything I know of the Theology of the Body, the Church Fathers, the CCC, natural law… the whole works. Now its possible I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to admit I might be. Currently I’m trying to find something with some authority to back up either position. Unfortunately 3/4 of what I’m finding on sexual mortality is by Ron Conte or other lay people.

And here too, I disagree with you. The “marital act” is specifically descriptive of sex between a married couple. Sex out side of that, has a different term - fornication.

And yes, the marital embrace is fundamentally different from fornication, rape, or prostitution. So we disagree on that as well.

 

[LJN21]

What I mean by ‘fundamental nature’ is that some how sex is only has the untive aspect inside of marriage. From my understanding the unitive and procreative are intrinsic to sex by its very nature. You can frustrate or mock one or all parts, but they don’t just stop existing because you are using the act immorally.

 

[mommamaree]

No, you are not on my ignore list. I am sorry.

What post(s) do you want me to respond to?

If I don’t respond to a post, it isn’t necessarily because I’m “ignoring you”… but because I probably have already given my opinion and don’t have much left to say.

No apology necessary. I am glad I was mistaken.

 

[Debora123]

What I mean by ‘fundamental nature’ is that some how sex is only has the untive aspect inside of marriage. From my understanding the unitive and procreative are intrinsic to sex by its very nature. You can frustrate or mock one or all parts, but they don’t just stop existing because you are using the act immorally.

Procreation is a natural outcome of uncontracepted sex. However, I have already expressed my views regarding unity and how I don’t think it comes automatically with every sexual act. I DO think “unity” is not present when the act is immoral.

 

[thewanderer]

Rape is never ordered towards unity/procreation. Whether it is done in a marriage or not.

Agreed

I think what it comes down to is that we’re disagreeing on the definition of “unity.” To me, unity is the love/self gift part of it. Since fornication/rape/prostitution are sinful, they are never a loving/self giving act. Thus, they are not a unitive act.

well… yes and no, although to be honest, this has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I tried to remove this debate from my point for the moment by saying that the quote you brought up doesn’t definitively answer this question and that, whatever the answer to this question, the quote does not mean what you were trying to make it mean. Perhaps you can extrapolate from that quote to come to the conclusion you have, but that just plain is not what the quote itself is saying, you would have to really distort the meaning of what is written there to try and make that the point of that quote

As for mine/your interpretation of that #2 reason, eh… we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I am merely looking at the grammatical structure of the sentence. While what you are saying could still be true and compatible with this particular quote, it just is not what the quote itself is actually saying.

"Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love."

The bolded part is the actual sentence, the rest of the sentence is a clause that that compares rape to marital love. In other words, this sentance makes a statement about rape, that it is an act of force and violence, as a reason why EC is allowed in cases of rape. Then it also goes on to make a comparison between rape and marital love. What it is not doing is giving the comparison to marital love as the reason why EC is allowed. It is possible that that is still a reason, no determination has been made yet wwith respect to that question. However, it would be a complete misreading of this sentence to say that it itself is saying that ABC is ok outside of marriage.

[EDIT: I’m sorry if I’m coming across as being nitpicky … its just part of how I think. I need to make sure that all of the little details and distinctions are right. Its kind of funny, because my bf is much more of an intuitive thinker than I am yet intuitive thinking is supposedly a “womanly” trait while caring about all the details is supposedly “manly” Oh well, just goes to show that generalities don’t always work. ]**

 

[Debora123]

Agreed

well… yes and no, although to be honest, this has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I tried to remove this debate from my point for the moment by saying that the quote you brought up doesn’t definitively answer this question and that, whatever the answer to this question, the quote does not mean what you were trying to make it mean. Perhaps you can extrapolate from that quote to come to the conclusion you have, but that just plain is not what the quote itself is saying, you would have to really distort the meaning of what is written there to try and make that the point of that quote

I am merely looking at the grammatical structure of the sentence. While what you are saying could still be true and compatible with this particular quote, it just is not what the quote itself is actually saying.

The bolded part is the actual sentence, the rest of the sentence is a clause that that compares rape to marital love. In other words, this sentance makes a statement about rape, that it is an act of force and violence, as a reason why EC is allowed in cases of rape. Then it also goes on to make a comparison between rape and marital love. What it is not doing is giving the comparison to marital love as the reason why EC is allowed. It is possible that that is still a reason, no determination has been made yet wwith respect to that question. However, it would be a complete misreading of this sentence to say that it itself is saying that ABC is ok outside of marriage.

I’m not sure what else to say about that quote without repeating myself.

They could’ve just said:

“Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike a consensual sex act between consenting adults.”

But they didn’t, they said this:

*"Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love."
*

I saw a link there between marital sex and unitive/procreative that you didn’t see, or just interpreted differently than myself.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I have to go to work though. Be back later.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I’d say because the woman was under no commitment to be “open to life” if she was raped. She wasn’t even a willing participant in the sex act. Therefore, she has a right to avoid conceiving a child. My understanding is that the morning after pill prevents conception from happening, so unlike abortion, you are not killing a child.

 

[fix]

…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill? (given no fertilization has taken place)

From what I understand, when an act is intrinsically evil, it means that the act is ALWAYS wrong. No matter who what where when why.

If that’s the case, then why is it morally permissible to contracept against a rapist? (given no harm is being done to an already fertilized egg if one is present)

The sin of contraception can only happen when the two people come togther willingly. The assault situation you mention makes the sperm an unjust aggressor. There is no contraception involved. The unjust aggressor may be repelled.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not sure what else to say about that quote without repeating myself.

They could’ve just said:

"Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike a consensual sex act between consenting adults."

But they didn’t, they said this:

"Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love."

I saw a link there between marital sex and unitive/procreative that you didn’t see, or just interpreted differently than myself.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I have to go to work though. Be back later.

I hope you do not get frustrated with me bringing this up again, its just that I’m pretty sure you still misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I agree with you that that link is present in that sentence, my point was simply that since it is not the main clause of the sentence, it is not the reason given for EC being ok after rape.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What? Please forgive me but I do not understand your point…

I’m sorry, I wasn’t being clear.

What I mean is, ending discussion now wouldn’t really bring closure to the thread. Answers may have been provided by several people, but they have been challenged.

Make sense?

 

[thewanderer]

I think what it comes down to is that we’re disagreeing on the definition of “unity.” To me, unity is the love/self gift part of it. Since fornication/rape/prostitution are sinful, they are never a loving/self giving act. Thus, they are not a unitive act.

I just wanted to say something about this point. It sounds as though you think that there cannot be any kind of unity unless there is perfect unity. I agree entirely with you that there in a rape, or even fornication, there is not the full, perfected kind of unity that is supposed to exist and that can exist within marriage. But I have to question the claim that since this perfected form of unity cannot exist** no **form of unity can exist. I think this is what other posters were trying to get at. There is still some form of unity, though imperfect, in the cases of rape and fornication.
Hopefully that helps clear at least some things up.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m sorry, I wasn’t being clear.

What I mean is, ending discussion now wouldn’t really bring closure to the thread. Answers may have been provided by several people, but they have been challenged.

Make sense?

Oh yes, that does. Thanks.

I wasn’t suggesting the conversation should end. Not at all. I was making the observation that at various points in the discussion and by various posters, those important points had been addressed. I was pleased to see that here at CAF, we were already circling around these points even before we had the benefit of the link. That is a good thing.

It seems that, for the time being at least, the main disagreements center on perception and understanding, rather than what Catholic teaching is on how to minister to the needs of rape victims, including EC when possible.

The answers that I see challenged aren’t so much the morality of EC for rape victims as varying understandings/perceptions of the precise differences between loving marital sexual intercourse, and any form of disorder or abuse of a person’s sexual faculties.

 

[levinas12]

Physically, the unitive and procreative aspects have a material reality that exists regardless of our choices or behaviors.

It is precisely because these aspects are built into the act of intercourse that there is no such thing as casual sex … Babies and bonding do occur whether in marriage or outside of it … We cannot ever really break natural or divine laws, we can only ever break ourselves against them …

Very wise response.

The body has its own ends. In philosophy, we refer to the body’s intentionality.

We need to distinguish natural “ends” from our conscious purposes (which may or may not coincide with the “ends”).

Catholic teaching on sex is based on natural “ends”.

I like your formulation: " … these aspects are built into the act of intercourse" [my emphasis]. There is a natural dimension to sex (independent of us) which can only be circumvented at our peril.

When we act contrary to natural ends, our bodies rebel against themselves. The entire biochemistry of sex, which is directed to the “other”, becomes “inverted”. The body will have its revenge. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.

 

[Corki]

Yes, it’s right here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8343095#post8343095

…The last post on that link is where it begins, and then just goes downhill from there. I see Corki was actually part of that discussion, and was on the side saying that fornication with contraception would still be 2 separate sins:

(From the other thread)

Strange how things changed.

Wow, pulling a single post from a year ago and inserting it into a completely unrelated discussion. If you are going to quote me, quote me in context, please. I was responding to a poster who said that contraception was not a factor (“void” was the word used) outside of marriage. My position was and still is that contracepted sex is a sin in or out of marriage. The question that is being pushed in this thread is whether it is **more of a sin **to use contraception outside of marriage vs. when married, not whether they are separate sins.

 

[Corki]

Sexual intercourse is by its nature ONLY to take place in Marriage and in way that is unitive and open to life.

Anything contrary to that --is contrary to that and in various ways and degrees.

(for example adultery is more grave than fornication…)

I think the problem people are having is trying to use “more grave” and make it mathematical. “If fornication is a sin and contraception is a sin then that’s two sins.” A more grave sin isn’t more grave because of an additive effect.

 

[LJN21]

I’ve spent most of the afternoon going through various Church documents and the like. I have found nothing that does not back up the idea that the unitive and procreative are the very nature of the act. That is why its intrinsically evil to do anything deliberately divorce one form the other or pervert the act in any way. It goes against natural law to deliberately divorce and aspect or pervert it form its God given nature.

Fornication, rape, masturbation, porn, all of these things either pervert the act or artificially divorce one aspect form the other. Making them intrinsically evil. I can’t help but wonder if every action of perverting the act even more doesn’t just incur another sin . Fornication and contraception seems like it would very likely be two sins.

 

[Nate13]

I’ve spent most of the afternoon going through various Church documents and the like. I have found nothing that does not back up the idea that the unitive and procreative are the very nature of the act. That is why its intrinsically evil to do anything deliberately divorce one form the other or pervert the act in any way. It goes against natural law to deliberately divorce and aspect or pervert it form its God given nature.

Fornication, rape, masturbation, porn, all of these things either pervert the act or artificially divorce one aspect form the other. Making them intrinsically evil. I can’t help but wonder if every action of perverting the act even more doesn’t just incur another sin . Fornication and contraception seems like it would very likely be two sins.

Fornication is a separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex as well… What your missing here is that sex outside of marriage can never be fully “unitive” as it is defined by the Church whether the couple is using contraceptives or not. Thus the use of contraceptives outside marriage in no real way would increase the seriousness of the sin of fornication unless the contraceptive taken possibly endangers the life of a newly conceived child.

As I said about 5 pages ago, if you define contraception as the splitting of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex then every type of sexual immorality could be called a contraceptive act. The Bible refers to this idea of the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex as “unchastity”. Thus for the term “contraceptive” to have any new meaning it must be used in reference to the deliberate frustration of the conjugal act within marriage or else it just becomes synonymous with sexual immorality and unchastity. I myself think its pretty clear the Church is using a much narrower definition of contraception when its used in the Catechism to refer to sexually immoral acts within marriage.

 

[Debora123]

I just wanted to say something about this point. It sounds as though you think that there cannot be any kind of unity unless there is perfect unity. I agree entirely with you that there in a rape, or even fornication, there is not the full, perfected kind of unity that is supposed to exist and that can exist within marriage. But I have to question the claim that since this perfected form of unity cannot exist** no **form of unity can exist. I think this is what other posters were trying to get at. There is still some form of unity, though imperfect, in the cases of rape and fornication.
Hopefully that helps clear at least some things up.

I understand what you are saying. Though I still disagree. I don’t think fornication/rape/prostitution is unitive at all.

 

[Debora123]

Wow, pulling a single post from a year ago and inserting it into a completely unrelated discussion. If you are going to quote me, quote me in context, please. I was responding to a poster who said that contraception was not a factor (“void” was the word used) outside of marriage. My position was and still is that contracepted sex is a sin in or out of marriage. **The question that is being pushed in this thread is whether it is **more of a sin ****to use contraception outside of marriage vs. when married, not whether they are separate sins.

Lol, the point I’m making in this thread is the exact same point I was making in the other thread. The quote I posted was not out of context.

 

[Debora123]

Fornication is a separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sex as well… What your missing here is that sex outside of marriage can never be fully “unitive” as it is defined by the Church whether the couple is using contraceptives or not. Thus the use of contraceptives outside marriage in no real way would increase the seriousness of the sin of fornication unless the contraceptive taken possibly endangers the life of a newly conceived child.

As I said about 5 pages ago, if you define contraception as the splitting of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex then every type of sexual immorality could be called a contraceptive act. The Bible refers to this idea of the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex as “unchastity”. Thus for the term “contraceptive” to have any new meaning it must be used in reference to the deliberate frustration of the conjugal act within marriage or else it just becomes synonymous with sexual immorality and unchastity. I myself think its pretty clear the Church is using a much narrower definition of contraception when its used in the Catechism to refer to sexually immoral acts within marriage.