If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

Again that is not possible. One may never do something that is intrinsically evil. This is a fundamental rule of moral theology that can not be broken.

It is not intrinsically evil to contracept against a rapist.

 

[fix]

Ah, I see…

You’re right, they’re NOT making a distinction between “church defined contraception” and “common usage contraception.” Not a single source we’ve seen so far has.

And that’s because in this case, there is no distinction to be made. They are both contraception. Only difference is that it’s permissible to be used in rape, and not permissible to be used in marriage.

But there is a distinction. That some documents use imprecise terms does not make it right.

The sin of contraception is just that a sin. It is never licit.

interchanging medical terms with theological terms tends to confuse the issue.

 

[Debora123]

But there is a distinction. That some documents use imprecise terms does not make it right.

The sin of contraception is just that a sin. It is never licit.

interchanging medical terms with theological terms tends to confuse the issue.

Using contraception during rape is not “the sin of contraception”… because using contraception during rape is not a sin.

 

[mommamaree]

Agreed

Okay

The problem is sex is not a intrinsically evil act. The morally of the act is completely dependent on the situation you are in.

The Church has said Contraception IS an intrinsically evil act and my never be done for any reason. So for this to be okay, it has to be something other than Contraception.

I was giving an example of how the same action has, not only different levels of moral culpability, but also different “labels” or terms. Fornication is a mortal sin. Marital relations in a valid marriage is not. But both are a form of sexual relations. The context is what is different, as well as the players involved. Fornicators are not in a valid marriage (or a sacramental one).

The Catholic woman I described was actually me, by the way. I had to go through the process of marrying my husband (AGAIN) because I wanted to enter the Catholic Church. If I had remained Protestant, my marriage would have been considered valid. In my situation, my priest assured me that we were not subjectively guilty of any sin.

To everyone,

The Church has stated that certain uses of contraceptives are not sinful. So, whether for therapeutic reasons or for preventing conception after rape, we can be assured that we would not be willfully choosing to do something that we know to be a sin, because we have been told it is not a sin. However the bishops decide to nuance the situation is up to them. They are way smarter than me. I am far more concerned with the practical side of things (“Lord, what must I do?”) than in participating in a pastoral discussion of nuanced language.

That is why I have been participating so much in this thread. It irks me to see, at times, that the assertion is put forth that women may not prevent conception and that they must just passively allow the rapist’s sperm to stay within her body and do what sperm do, despite the fact that the rapist had NO RIGHT TO PUT HIS SPERM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Women are not merely passive creatures. We are created in the image of God and we have the right to say “No” at any time, before, during, and after. We are moral creatures with the God-given right and responsibility to make free choices, not just to say “Oh well, he has started raping me therefore I must allow him to finish in order to not be guilty of the sin of Onan and I must not douche or take medications to prevent conception because sex is to make babies…and the fact that it certainly didn’t feel like sex to me matters little to anyone else, most especially God.” Doesn’t that passive attitude just sound ridiculous? I think any reasonable person would agree that it does. I don’t care how the bishops make it non-contradictory or internal consistent. They are the bishops and they have the full charism of holy orders and they are far better equipped than any of us to make these decisions.
The bishops say the rapist, AND HIS SPERM, are unjust agressors and may be repelled at any time. I agree with them.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.

Contraception is defined within marriage. And it has been proven to be ALWAYS wrong.

 

[Debora123]

The morning-after pill is contraception. A rape victim is allowed to prevent conception (i.e. contracept).
Condoms and diaphragms are both contraceptive devices. Sex slaves are not required to allow for conception, as they are being raped.
Pulling out, aka withdrawal, is a contraceptive sexual technique. A rape victim is allowed to beg her rapist to withdraw at any time.
Victims are not required, either through natural law, moral/ethical law, divine revelation, or magisterial teaching to passively allow conception to occur simply because her sexual intimacy is being violated. At any time, she is allowed to repel her unjust aggressor, even if that is after the fact.

The EC pill does not attack sperm at all. It is not a spermicide. It is a high dose of oral contraceptives. It prevents ovulation, thereby preventing conception.

EC does NOT do anything to the sperm. It merely prevents ovulation, thereby preventing her egg from being fertilized by his sperm, meaning preventing conception (i.e. contracepting).

EC and condoms is still contraception. The reason this is allowed is because of the nature of the act, the rape itself. A rape victim is not required to allow her attacker to impregnate her simply because he is violating her sexual intimacy.

 

[Debora123]

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.

Contraception is defined within marriage. And it has been proven to be ALWAYS wrong.

It is defined to be WRONG within marriage. It hasn’t been defined as being only existent in marriage, or not existent outside of marriage.

 

[LJN21]

It is not intrinsically evil to contracept

It is ALWAY intrinsically evil to contracept.

against a rapist.

It can’t be contracption… it must be something more along the lines of self defence.

Look, to prove your theory you are going to have to go and find something based on natural law that says the very nature of sex is not procreative and unitive and those properties are only there in marriage.

Remember Natural Law is the foundation of all Moral Theology, with out that we don’t have Moral Theology. Everything I have found is that the natural nature of sex is untive and procreative.

All the vises regarding sex are evil (more some than others) because they do something to pervert the one or both of the natural aspects of the act.

Simple fornication form what I can tell is not an intrinsic evil because it doesn’t unnaturally frustrate the act. Its just licit (unlawful) sex.

Rape is intrinsic evil because it destroys the untive.
Contraception is intrinsic evil because it destroys the procreative.

 

[Debora123]

I was giving an example of how the same action has, not only different levels of moral culpability, but also different “labels” or terms. Fornication is a mortal sin. Marital relations in a valid marriage is not. But both are a form of sexual relations. The context is what is different, as well as the players involved. Fornicators are not in a valid marriage (or a sacramental one).

The Catholic woman I described was actually me, by the way. I had to go through the process of marrying my husband (AGAIN) because I wanted to enter the Catholic Church. If I had remained Protestant, my marriage would have been considered valid. In my situation, my priest assured me that we were not subjectively guilty of any sin.

To everyone,

The Church has stated that certain uses of contraceptives are not sinful. So, whether for therapeutic reasons or for preventing conception after rape, we can be assured that we would not be willfully choosing to do something that we know to be a sin, because we have been told it is not a sin. However the bishops decide to nuance the situation is up to them. They are way smarter than me. I am far more concerned with the practical side of things (“Lord, what must I do?”) than in participating in a pastoral discussion of nuanced language.

That is why I have been participating so much in this thread. It irks me to see, at times, that the assertion is put forth that women may not prevent conception and that they must just passively allow the rapist’s sperm to stay within her body and do what sperm do, despite the fact that the rapist had NO RIGHT TO PUT HIS SPERM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Women are not merely passive creatures. We are created in the image of God and we have the right to say “No” at any time, before, during, and after. We are moral creatures with the God-given right and responsibility to make free choices, not just to say “Oh well, he has started raping me therefore I must allow him to finish in order to not be guilty of the sin of Onan and I must not douche or take medications to prevent conception because sex is to make babies…and the fact that it certainly didn’t feel like sex to me matters little to anyone else, most especially God.” Doesn’t that passive attitude just sound ridiculous? I think any reasonable person would agree that it does. I don’t care how the bishops make it non-contradictory or internal consistent. They are the bishops and they have the full charism of holy orders and they are far better equipped than any of us to make these decisions.
The bishops say the rapist, AND HIS SPERM, are unjust agressors and may be repelled at any time. I agree with them.

 

[Debora123]

It is ALWAY intrinsically evil to contracept.
It can’t be contracption… it must be something more along the lines of self defence.

Look, to prove your theory you are going to have to go and find something based on natural law that says the very nature of sex is not procreative and unitive and those properties are only there in marriage.

Remember Natural Law is the foundation of all Moral Theology, with out that we don’t have Moral Theology. Everything I have found is that the natural nature of sex is untive and procreative.

All the vises regarding sex are evil (more some than others) because they do something to pervert the one or both of the natural aspects of the act.

Simple fornication form what I can tell is not an intrinsic because it doesn’t unnaturally frustrate the act. Its just licit (unlawful) sex.

Rape is intrinsic evil because it destroys the untive.
Contraception is intrinsic evil because it destroys the procrative

Haha, nice way to slice up my one sentence.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It is defined to be WRONG within marriage. It hasn’t been defined as being only existent in marriage, or not existent outside of marriage.

I’ll (begrudgingly) admit that the grammar is rather ambiguous.

I guess it comes down, to me, to the fact that contraception has been proven to be intrinsically wrong.

EDIT: Well, and BlesseD Pope JPII’s very strongly worded statement.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Haha, nice way to slice up my one sentence.

What exactly do you mean by this? Obviously, since it’s me, I thought he gave a rock solid argument.

 

[LJN21]

What exactly do you mean by this? Obviously, since it’s me, I thought he gave a rock solid argument.

She

 

[Debora123]

I’ll (begrudgingly) admit that the grammar is rather ambiguous.

I guess it comes down, to me, to the fact that contraception has been proven to be intrinsically wrong.

Why don’t you speak to your priest about this?

Perhaps he can explain it to you and help you understand in a way that none of us here can.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by mommamaree
The morning-after pill is contraception. A rape victim is allowed to prevent conception (i.e. contracept).
Condoms and diaphragms are both contraceptive devices. Sex slaves are not required to allow for conception, as they are being raped.
Pulling out, aka withdrawal, is a contraceptive sexual technique. A rape victim is allowed to beg her rapist to withdraw at any time.
Victims are not required, either through natural law, moral/ethical law, divine revelation, or magisterial teaching to passively allow conception to occur simply because her sexual intimacy is being violated. At any time, she is allowed to repel her unjust aggressor, even if that is after the fact.

Originally Posted by mommamaree
The EC pill does not attack sperm at all. It is not a spermicide. It is a high dose of oral contraceptives. It prevents ovulation, thereby preventing conception.

Originally Posted by mommamaree
EC does NOT do anything to the sperm. It merely prevents ovulation, thereby preventing her egg from being fertilized by his sperm, meaning preventing conception (i.e. contracepting).

Originally Posted by mommamaree
EC and condoms is still contraception. The reason this is allowed is because of the nature of the act, the rape itself. A rape victim is not required to allow her attacker to impregnate her simply because he is violating her sexual intimacy.

Bump!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Why don’t you speak to your priest about this?

Perhaps he can explain it to you and help you understand in a way that none of us here can.

Well, my e-mail to my theology teacher is currently half-written (I plan to cannibalize it and send it to Dr. Feser afterward).

He’s one of the two smartest people I’ve ever met and he’s currently working for his Masters in Catholic bioethics, which would include things lke contraception. So I’ll trust his response.

As for Dr. Feser, I’ve never believed anything he’s said to be anything but rock solid.

 

[Debora123]

What exactly do you mean by this? Obviously, since it’s me, I thought he gave a rock solid argument.

It’s the same argument she’s* been *giving, which I *still *have all the same responses to, which I’ve given multiple times now.

 

[Debora123]

Well, my e-mail to my theology teacher is currently half-written (I plan to cannibalize it and send it to Dr. Feser afterward).

He’s one of the two smartest people I’ve ever met and he’s currently working for his Masters in Catholic bioethics, which would include things lke contraception. So I’ll trust his response.

As for Dr. Feser, I’ve never believed anything he’s said to be anything but rock solid.

I just think it would be more helpful to your understanding to actually have face to face discussion with your priest about it, rather than emailing someone and reading their response. I would just do both.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I just think it would be more helpful to your understanding to actually have face to face discussion with your priest about it, rather than emailing someone and reading their response. I would just do both.

That probably will be a good idea in the end.

 

[LJN21]

The morning-after pill is contraception. A rape victim is allowed to prevent conception (i.e. contracept).
Condoms and diaphragms are both contraceptive devices. Sex slaves are not required to allow for conception, as they are being raped.
Pulling out, aka withdrawal, is a contraceptive sexual technique. A rape victim is allowed to beg her rapist to withdraw at any time.
Victims are not required, either through natural law, moral/ethical law, divine revelation, or magisterial teaching to passively allow conception to occur simply because her sexual intimacy is being violated. At any time, she is allowed to repel her unjust aggressor, even if that is after the fact.

The MAP is not been proven to be morally licit.

Condoms and diaphragms are lines of self defense against an unjust aggressor. This is exactly how the Church says it. The intention is not contraception, it is protection.

A rape victim is to defender her self. Again this is exactly how the Church phrases it. The intention is not contraption it is to get away form her attacker.

The victim as a right through natural law to defend against an attacker that has no right to her body. Again this is exactly how the Church phrases it.

Contraception is not ever aloud. Self defense is always moral.

You can say it semantics all day long, but the mean of the words used is very important here. That is why the Church phrases it so carefully.