If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marc_Anthony said:
But does the USCCB ever actually use the term contraception?

I know you disagree with my view. But for the sake of argument, and because it’s quite possible I’m wrong, I’m willing to say that using artificial contraceptives after rape is not wrong. But does the USCCB actually define this as contraception? Or do they believe that it is not contraception as technically defined by the Church?

Because “contraception is INTRINSICALLY wrong” isn’t only my opinion. It is the unbroken teaching of the Church for around 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Debora123 said:
Never once do any sources say that contracepting against rape is permissible because it isn’t contraception. The reasons given for why it is permissible are these:

I highlighted them for your convenience. Notice of the 3 reasons given, none of them include “it is permissible because it is not contraception.”

That’s all I’m going to say on this issue.** I am not going to revisit this absurd notion that contracepting against a rapist is not actually contraception.** This has already been discussed and put to rest pages ago. In my opinion, **such notion is not even worthy of any more discussion than it’s already been given. **

We can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
 
fix said:
No, that is not the sin of contraception unless you make rape a form of intercourse which it is not.
Click to expand...
This is where the argument always loses me. How is intercourse suddenly not intercourse when it’s forced?

I think I’ll e-mail my old teacher now…maybe Dr. Feser as well (Catholic Thomist philosopher-he’s fully in line with the teachings of the Church).
 
LJN21 said:
Fix, I’m just hijacking you quote to make to go back to a point against something someone else said several pages ago.

Fornicators are still culpable for contraceptive acts because what they are doing IS intercourse.
Click to expand...
Fornication is a willingly coming together and I would agree the sin of contraception can be done there. Rape is not fornication. Rape may mimic the sexual act but it is unwilled and of a different moral dimension.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
This is where the argument always loses me. How is intercourse suddenly not intercourse when it’s forced?
Click to expand...
Because intercourse must be agreed to. There is not only a physical aspect but a moral aspect that must be considered.
I think I’ll e-mail my old teacher now…maybe Dr. Feser as well (Catholic Thomist philosopher-he’s fully in line with the teachings of the Church).
Click to expand...
I am sure you will get various opinions. The basic problem I see is that the sin of contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be done for any reason.

One cannot claim that rape is an exception to use contraception. The problem is defining our terms.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
This is where the argument always loses me. How is intercourse suddenly not intercourse when it’s forced?
Click to expand...
Was thinking about that a while ago and this is the best thing I came up with. Look at the definition of the word.

1.dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.
2.interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.
3.sexual relations or a sexual coupling, especially coitus.

Its about mutual actions. In rape it is a completely one sided sex act.
 
fix said:
Fornication is a willingly coming together and I would agree the sin of contraception can be done there. Rape is not fornication. Rape may mimic the sexual act but it is unwilled and of a different moral dimension.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Someone earlier was trying to say that only the conjugal act is called to be procreative and unitive. So fornicators aren’t called to be procreative and can use non abortificiant contraception.
 
Debora123 said:
Sure! But I am allowed to believe or disbelieve certain things in the Summa and in USCCB.
Click to expand...
You can only disbelieve the parts that don’t follow the traditional teaching of the Church 😉 You can believe the parts that doesn’t contradict the traditional teachings of the Church.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
This is where the argument always loses me. How is intercourse suddenly not intercourse when it’s forced?

I think I’ll e-mail my old teacher now…maybe Dr. Feser as well (Catholic Thomist philosopher-he’s fully in line with the teachings of the Church).
Click to expand...
Father Torraco highlighted the “inter” part of intercourse. in the EWTN link

This is what “inter” means:
inter-
pref. **1. **Between; among: international.
**2. **In the midst of; within: intertropical.
**3. **Mutual; mutually: interrelate.
**4. **Reciprocal; reciprocally: intermingle
Click to expand...
So rape wouldn’t be considered “intercourse” per se’. Probably a better term would be “coitus”.
 
LJN21 said:
I agree with you. Someone earlier was trying to say that only the conjugal act is called to be procreative and unitive.
Click to expand...
It was a number of us who were saying that. Not just “someone”… singular noun.
So fornicators aren’t called to be procreative and can use non abortificiant contraception.
Click to expand...
No one said “fornicators can use contraception.” Fornicators are called to do one thing and one thing only - to stop fornicating.
 
LJN21 said:
You can only disbelieve the parts that don’t follow the traditional teaching of the Church 😉 You can believe the parts that doesn’t contradict the traditional teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the USCCB’s stance on rape/plan b contradict Church teaching. ;);)😉
 
I understand that the sex act is defacto unitve and procreative. (when 2 unite than a baby can be conceived) Because of this it is reserved for marriage.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
So rape wouldn’t be considered “intercourse” per se’. Probably a better term would be “coitus”.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that playing around with words to that level like that isn’t very reliable. There are hundreds of languages in this world, and not all of them have a direct translation for the word “coitus” over the word “intercourse.”

In the end, they are synonyms.

Definition? When a penis goes into a vagina.

Definition of rape? Forced sex/intercourse/coitus. They are all have the same definition.
 
In reference to my last post, the one thing that changes is that the rape victim does not say “we had intercourse” when referencing the rape. Instead, the rape victim says “she/he forced intercourse on me.”
 
Debora123 said:
However we word any of this, the bottom line in my thinking is this:

The Church teaches that for marital sex to be moral, it must be both unitive and procreative.

I don’t think the same thing applies to sex that is outside of marriage, because it is already a disordered act. So, why should there be a moral requirement to an act that is already gravely twisted and disordered?

Bottom line, fornication/prostitution/rape are not morally called to be unitive and procreative. They are just called to stop taking place. There is no moral requirement to not use a condom when having sex with a boyfriend, a prostitute, or a rapist… like there is with a spouse.
Click to expand...
Debora123 said:
By saying that marital sex is “morally called” to be unitive/procreative, I meant that marital sex must be unitive/procreative in order to be a moral act. That’s why the Church teaches that if you have contracepted sex with your spouse, or if you have selfish sex with your spouse, the act becomes sinful… because it is morally called, it has moral requirement to be both unitive/procreative.

However, any sort of sex outside of marriage, fornication/prostitution/rape, doesn’t have those same moral requirements… as in, don’t have any type of requirements that would make those acts moral.

Those acts are disordered and immoral in themselves, and the only moral requirement we have in regards to those acts is to just not commit them at all.

There is no moral way to have sex outside of marriage because sex outside of marriage is already automatically gravely wrong due to the fact that it is happening outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Debora123 said:
Just pointing out that playing around with words to that level like that isn’t very reliable. There are hundreds of languages in this world, and not all of them have a direct translation for the word “coitus” over the word “intercourse.”

In the end, they are synonyms.

Definition? When a penis goes into a vagina.

Definition of rape? Forced sex/intercourse/coitus. They are all have the same definition.
Click to expand...
Both “intercourse” and “coitus” derive from Latin. If language has 1 term then it will have the other.

Chuch documents are nornally in Latin.
 
Debora123 said:
However we word any of this, the bottom line in my thinking is this:

The Church teaches that for marital sex to be moral, it must be both unitive and procreative.

I don’t think the same thing applies to sex that is outside of marriage, because it is already a disordered act. So, why should there be a moral requirement to an act that is already gravely twisted and disordered?

Bottom line, fornication/prostitution/rape are not morally called to be unitive and procreative. They are just called to stop taking place. There is no moral requirement to not use a condom when having sex with a boyfriend, a prostitute, or a rapist… like there is with a spouse.

I hope everyone can at least understand what I’m saying. I am trying to be as clear as possible but I often have a difficult time putting my thoughts into words.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that is theologically incorrect if you look at ALL of the church teaching on the subject.
 
It is not simply using different terms, it is that different terms apply and matter because the essence of the acts are very different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top