If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Corki]

Here’s an analogy: You miss mass. That’s a mortal sin. Next week, for some unknown reason (doesn’t matter what it is, it’s a hypothetical) you absolutely could not go to reconciliation before mass. You go to mass and receive the Eucharist.

By the logic we’re using on this thread why are we even making taking the Eucharist after mass another mortal sin? After all, you’re already in mortal sin, so what’s the difference?

I suppose you could treat all serious sin that way.

The analogy I was thinking of is cheating on your wife. You deceive your wife and commit adultery. Are those two separate sins or is the deceit part of the sin of cheating on your wife?

To carry it over, is contraception when fornicating a separate sin or part of the bigger sin of extramarital sex?

My position is that contraceptive fornication and un-contraceptive fornication are different but by quality, not quantity. The former may be worse because contraception is always wrong but not because the sins are added together in a 1+1=2 manner.

 

[Debora123]

Here’s an analogy: You miss mass. That’s a mortal sin. Next week, for some unknown reason (doesn’t matter what it is, it’s a hypothetical) you absolutely could not go to reconciliation before mass. You go to mass and receive the Eucharist.

By the logic we’re using on this thread why are we even making taking the Eucharist after mass another mortal sin? After all, you’re already in mortal sin, so what’s the difference?

That’s not the same logic at all.

Perhaps you don’t understand all my posts explaining my position on this, and that could be my fault for not being able to be clear enough.

The point is, I don’t believe contracepting fornication would be a sin because I don’t believe fornication is called to be procreative in the first place. It is only called to stop taking place altogether.

 

[mgoforth]

Here’s an analogy: You miss mass. That’s a mortal sin. Next week, for some unknown reason (doesn’t matter what it is, it’s a hypothetical) you absolutely could not go to reconciliation before mass. You go to mass and receive the Eucharist.

By the logic we’re using on this thread why are we even making taking the Eucharist after mass another mortal sin? After all, you’re already in mortal sin, so what’s the difference?

Seriously?? There’s a huge difference. Your still in mortal sin, but now you’ve committed two separate acts instead of only one. And that only pushes God further away, and makes it more difficult to return to Him for forgiveness. If I kill someone, am I then ok to go kill more people until I can make it to confession? Of course not…I’m afraid you’ve chosen a bad analogy.

 

[mgoforth]

That’s not the same logic at all.

Perhaps you don’t understand all my posts explaining my position on this, and that could be my fault for not being able to be clear enough.

The point is, I don’t believe contracepting fornication would be a sin because I don’t believe fornication is called to be procreative in the first place.

Using contraception is always wrong (grave matter) in God’s eyes, the situation does not make a difference. Notice I didn’t say it was automatically a mortal sin, because I’m sure you’re aware of that grave matter is only one of the three necessary conditions. But certainly using contraception is 100% wrong whether the situation is sex within marriage, fornication, adultery…yes even rape. Although with rape, the actual sexual assault is a million times more evil than the contraception…but they’re both evil.

And it doesn’t matter whether fornication is called to be procreative in the mind of the sinner. What matters is that the sexual act is always called to be open to life by God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Seriously?? There’s a huge difference. Your still in mortal sin, but now you’ve committed two separate acts instead of only one. And that only pushes God further away, and makes it more difficult to return to Him for forgiveness. If I kill someone, am I then ok to go kill more people until I can make it to confession? Of course not…I’m afraid you’ve chosen a bad analogy.

Of COURSE there’s a huge difference! I never said I agreed with it. My point was that if you’ve already fornicated isn’t contraception another sin?

Debora gave an explanation that makes sense, although I’m not 100% sure if I agree with it. But don’t think for a second I think that analogy is really true.

 

[Debora123]

Of COURSE there’s a huge difference! I never said I agreed with it. My point was that if you’ve already fornicated isn’t contraception another sin?

Debora gave an explanation that makes sense, although I’m not 100% sure if I agree with it. But don’t think for a second I think that analogy is really true.

I’m glad I was able to clear that up!

 

[mgoforth]

Of COURSE there’s a huge difference! I never said I agreed with it. My point was that if you’ve already fornicated isn’t contraception another sin?

Debora gave an explanation that makes sense, although I’m not 100% sure if I agree with it. But don’t think for a second I think that analogy is really true.

Yes, contraception is wrong, even within fornication.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Using contraception is always wrong (grave matter) in God’s eyes, the situation does not make a difference. Notice I didn’t say it was automatically a mortal sin, because I’m sure you’re aware of that grave matter is only one of the three necessary conditions. But certainly using contraception is 100% wrong whether the situation is sex within marriage, fornication, adultery…yes even rape. Although with rape, the actual sexual assault is a million times more evil than the contraception…but they’re both evil.

And it doesn’t matter whether fornication is called to be procreative in the mind of the sinner. What matters is that the sexual act is always called to be open to life by God.

Yeah, I agree.

The thing is, sex is naturally ordered towards life. It just is. Rape doesn’t change that. A woman who is raped can get pregnant. And contraception is wrong. It is INTRINSICALLY evil. This means no matter the situation, including rape.

 

[mgoforth]

Yeah, I agree.

The thing is, sex is naturally ordered towards life. It just is. Rape doesn’t change that. A woman who is raped can get pregnant. And contraception is wrong. It is INTRINSICALLY evil. This means no matter the situation, including rape.

Yes, I agree. God can take our evil deeds and turn them into good. God can take a rape, which the rapist commits with completely selfish, evil intentions, and turn it into a beautiful child. Therefore, contraception is always wrong. That’s never an excuse for rape…but likewise rape (or fornication) is not an excuse for contraception.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Yes, I agree. God can take our evil deeds and turn them into good. God can take a rape, which the rapist commits with completely selfish, evil intentions, and turn it into a beautiful child. Therefore, contraception is always wrong. That’s never an excuse for rape…but likewise rape (or fornication) is not an excuse for contraception.

Just FYI (in case you missed it), the Church authorizes the morning after pill in cases of rape. If you should become pregnant, you can’t abort, but you are authorized to prevent conception if you were a victim of an attack.

 

[Corki]

Just FYI (in case you missed it), the Church authorizes the morning after pill in cases of rape. If you should become pregnant, you can’t abort, but you are authorized to prevent conception if you were a victim of an attack.

Yes, that’s where this thread started. LOL.

 

[Debora123]

Yeah, I agree.

The thing is, sex is naturally ordered towards life. It just is. Rape doesn’t change that. A woman who is raped can get pregnant. And contraception is wrong. It is INTRINSICALLY evil. This means no matter the situation, including rape.

Yes, I agree. God can take our evil deeds and turn them into good. God can take a rape, which the rapist commits with completely selfish, evil intentions, and turn it into a beautiful child. Therefore, contraception is always wrong. That’s never an excuse for rape…but likewise rape (or fornication) is not an excuse for contraception.

So you guys would disagree with USCCB that it would be morally permissible for rape victims to take the morning after pill? (given there is no fertilized egg)

Would you also say that sex slaves would have a moral obligation to turn down an opportunity to wear a diaphragm if it was provided to them?

How would you feel about a rapist not going through to climax and “pulling out” before he finishes? Would he have a moral obligation to just finish?

 

[Debora123]

Just FYI (in case you missed it),** the Church authorizes the morning after pill in cases of rape.** If you should become pregnant, you can’t abort, but you are authorized to prevent conception if you were a victim of an attack.

I think they know, they just don’t agree.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So you guys would disagree with USCCB that it would be morally permissible for rape victims to take the morning after pill?

Is the USCCB’s teaching in line with the overall official Magisterium?

This is in question during the thread.

Your “pulling out” analogy does not work. The rapist is already sinning; pulling out will be part of the sin, not an added sin, if that makes sense. It’ another aspect of his rape.

The person being raped is not committing a sin, but if she takes contraception she is (that said, the sin is almost certainly not mortal considering the circumstances, of course).

 

[mgoforth]

So you guys would disagree with USCCB that it would be morally permissible for rape victims to take the morning after pill? (given there is no fertilized egg)

Would you also say that sex slaves would have a moral obligation to turn down an opportunity to wear a diaphragm if it was provided to them?

How would you feel about a rapist not going through to climax and “pulling out” before he finishes? Would he have a moral obligation to just finish?

Debora, why are you putting words in my mouth? Not appreciated.

No, I would not disagree with the USCCB. You’ve simply misunderstood what I said. If a woman who was raped takes the morning after pill (as long as fertilization has not occurred) then it’s not contraception. It’s self-defense. OTOH, if a rapist uses a condom when he commits his act, it is contraception.

Sex slaves using diaphragms is not contraception. Please read about double effect.

However, your last example…even though you’ve chosen to phrase it in a very loaded way, would be contraception…and would be wrong. “Pulling out” in that case would be contraception. As I’ve said, contraception is always 100% wrong and I stand by that. As I also said, the rapist is guilty of a far more detestable crime - rape - and choosing to “finish” without “pulling out” doesn’t make the rape even one tiny bit more acceptable to God or me or anyone else.

In the future, please don’t speak to me with contempt.

 

[Debora123]

Is the USCCB’s teaching in line with the overall official Magisterium?

This is in question during the thread.

I just wanted to make sure I was correct in that you disagree with them.

Your “pulling out” analogy does not work. The rapist is already sinning; pulling out will be part of the sin, not an added sin, if that makes sense. It’ another aspect of his rape.

It wasn’t an analogy. It was a real question. Keep in mind, “pulling out” is still contraception. So if one contraception is ok, then why not the other?

 

[mgoforth]

Just FYI (in case you missed it), the Church authorizes the morning after pill in cases of rape. If you should become pregnant, you can’t abort, but you are authorized to prevent conception if you were a victim of an attack.

The situation you described is not contraception, it’s self-defense with the possible double effect of preventing fertilization. That’s why the USCCB allows it, not because they think contraception is ok sometimes.

 

[mgoforth]

The person being raped is not committing a sin, but if she takes contraception she is (that said, the sin is almost certainly not mortal considering the circumstances, of course).

No, she’s not sinning, because in this case the morning after pill is not considered contraception. It’s self defense.

 

[mgoforth]

I just wanted to make sure I was correct in that you disagree with them.

It wasn’t an analogy. It was a real question. Keep in mind, “pulling out” is still contraception. So if one contraception is ok, then why not the other?

Because one IS contraception, the other IS NOT.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The situation you described is not contraception, it’s self-defense with the possible double effect of preventing fertilization. That’s why the USCCB allows it, not because they think contraception is ok sometimes.

Ah, but some people who have 1 night stands use the morning after pill as a form of contraception.

Yes, I agree that the reason behind using it in rape cases is self-defense and that is why it is okay in this case. However, one could easily word this as a case where contraception is okay.