If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Ana_v]

That’s the issue, huh? “Intrinsic” means “intrinsic”. Always. So that’s why I really don’t think it can be allowed even outside of marriage.

Right, exactly.

Catholics can make as long of a list as they want regarding what rape is / is not, but that will not eliminate the fact that the use of contraception for pregnancy prevention is intrinsically evil. And we either mean that, or we don’t.

If we make even one exception, we are indirectly saying that it is *not *intrinsically evil.
For intrinsic evils are evils regardles of circumstance, motive, intention, or consequence.

Justification of fighting off rapist even if it involves withdrawal vs justification of using emergency contraception post- rape: emphasis on the point raised earlier that, in fighting off her rapist, she is reacting to immediate and present danger. That is not the case with the use of emergency contraception post-rape.

 

[Ana_v]

No one is questioning whether contracepting is intrinsically evil. We are questioning and Father Tad is stating that its Church teaching that it would not be contracepting in the case of rape.

One way to resolve the issue is for us to consult the definition of contraception.

 

[Corki]

His source for saying its Church teaching is that a collection of bishops are teaching it in concert together. I don’t know if its just the American bishops that are, or whether its worldwide thing, but I haven’t seen any higher authority condemning the bishops for their judgement on the matter. You could argue its prudential judgement, but all the same its the best we have to go off of given the information and abilities we currently have.

And I guess that’s the question. If its a collection of American bishops, it’s not “the Church”. The bishops can be authoritative but they cannot create teaching, only interpret it for the faithful in their dioceses. I am not saying he is wrong but “the Church teaches” is a very strong statement that is usually accompanied by some magesterial documents. If something was a matter of prudential judgement, you couldn’t affirm that “the Church teaches”. As far as I can tell, the Church hasn’t spoken on this as of yet.

I am not arguing with Father and he could very well have used Church documents in creating his assertion about Church teaching. But there are lots of people here who are pretty good with Church documents and they have primarily presented the USCCB document and not anything magesterial. As I said, this is an area where I haven’t gotten to the point of understanding and would love to see the documentation. I am just wishing he included a list of his sources.

 

[Nate13]

One way to resolve the issue is for us to consult the definition of contraception.

I don’t know. I take it as a hint that contraception is only talked about in the Catechism within the context of specifically marriage. The word is only used twice. I know of no reference in any papal encyclical the decries the sin of contracepting by unmarried persons. The act is by nature already contraceptive…

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Conjugal act means a sexual act between a married couple to me. The sexual act is never referred to as the conjugal act in the Catechism unless its being talked about within the context of marriage as well… All the things we have to go by seem to indicate that the sin of contracepting only applies within marriage.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No one is questioning whether contracepting is intrinsically evil. We are questioning and Father Tad is stating that its Church teaching that it would not be contracepting in the case of rape.

Earlier the big beef was whether or not contraception after rape was technically contraception. I suppose we’ve decided by now it isn’t? (I’d rather not go through the thread.)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Contraception is intrinsically evil because it goes against natural law. This does not change outside of marriage-it’s an intrinsic evil for that reason.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

While I am still studying the whole EC after rape issue, I do think it is different than fighting off a rapist during the act. At that point, the woman is protecting herself from immediate danger or at least trying to get the ongoing violence to stop. “Pulling out” isn’t always for contraceptive reasons and certainly wouldn’t be when the woman was fighting off a rapist or trying to escape.

Yeah, this I agree with.

 

[LJN21]

An ask the expert on contraption for martial rape.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43102

 

[levinas12]

Contraception is intrinsically evil because it goes against natural law. This does not change outside of marriage-it’s an intrinsic evil for that reason.

A woman goes on the pill to play it safe. She believes that fornication is wrong. But then again you never know what might happen. Especially in a moment of passion.

Is this OK?

So far, there’s no fornication. Not even an intention. Only suppression of ovulation.

Some on this thread have argued that taking the pill is only a sin within the context of marriage.

So what about this scenario?

Marc Anthony, you already know what I think.

 

[Nate13]

A young coed goes on the pill to play it safe. She believes that fornication is wrong. But then again you never know what might happen.

Is this OK?

So far, there’s no fornication. Only suppression of ovulation.

Some on this thread have argued that taking the pill is only a sin within the context of marriage.

So what about taking the pill outside that context?

The pill can potentially be taken morally for serious health reasons. The pill itself is not evil, its how its used that is evil. Even a condom for which I can think of no moral reason for using is not evil itself, its how its used that is evil. Suppressing ovulation is also not evil in and itself. Its the object of the act of suppressing ovulation that makes it evil. I believe from past threads that taking the pill in advance of a potential rape would not be morally right because it doesn’t pass muster with the principle of double affect.

 

[levinas12]

The pill can potentially be taken morally for serious health reasons. The pill itself is not evil, its how its used that is evil. Even a condom for which I can think of no moral reason for using is not evil itself, its how its used that is evil. Suppressing ovulation is also not evil in and itself. Its the object of the act of suppressing ovulation that makes it evil.

In my scenario, there are no serious health reasons. Just a matter of precaution.

 

[Nate13]

In my scenario, there are no serious health reasons. Just a matter of precaution.

I answered that part above. It is not moral to take the pill in precaution of rape because the good does not outweigh the bad. The pill has some serious side effects and its very hard to find a good that outweighs the bad side effects of the pill.

 

[LJN21]

Even a condom for which I can think of no moral reason for using is not evil itself, its how its used that is evil.

I got a couple moral uses

They use them in combat zones on the barrels of there rifles to keep dust, dirt or water out of them

A more serious one. A perforated condom prescribed to couples undergoing licit fertility treatments so that a sperm count may be done.

 

[levinas12]

I answered that part above. It is not moral to take the pill in precaution of rape because the good does not outweigh the bad. The pill has some serious side effects and its very hard to find a good that outweighs the bad side effects of the pill.

But now, what if fornication is involved?

Some argue that “contracepted” fornication - because it prevents disease and unwanted pregnancies - is more moral than “uncontracepted” fornication.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I answered that part above. It is not moral to take the pill in precaution of rape because the good does not outweigh the bad. The pill has some serious side effects and its very hard to find a good that outweighs the bad side effects of the pill.

I don’t think that’s it at all. Even if it’s to prevent rape, you’re using the pill “just in case” of conception from rape. It’s artificial birth control-an intrinsic evil.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t think that’s it at all. Even if it’s to prevent rape, you’re using the pill “just in case” of conception from rape. It’s artificial birth control-an intrinsic evil.

Humane Vitae

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

If infertility is truly a side affect of the action that is not intended then your not contracepting.

 

[Ana_v]

I answered that part above. It is not moral to take the pill in precaution of rape because the good does not outweigh the bad. The pill has some serious side effects and its very hard to find a good that outweighs the bad side effects of the pill.

But, how is this susbstantially different from taking the pill – the morning after pill – post-rape? In both cases, the objective of the act is to prevent oneself from conceiving a product-of-rape child. If it’s the method of contraception (birth control pill) that is the concern, we could pose a scenario – though impractical – in which a woman wears a female condom for prevention of pregnancy.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If infertility is truly a side affect of the action that is not intended then your not contracepting.

I agree-but infertility is an intended side effect if you’re using to prevent conception from rape “just in case”.

 

[LJN21]

I don’t think that’s it at all. Even if it’s to prevent rape, you’re using the pill “just in case” of conception from rape. It’s artificial birth control-an intrinsic evil.

I agree with you Marc, I don’t see how preemptive contraception can be morally licit. Especially considering most contraceptives have and aboritfician quality to them which is why in the Post rape case they have to make sure there has been any chance at fertilization before they can use them… Even still the morality of emergency contraceptives post rape is debated by theologians.

Humane Vitae

If infertility is truly a side affect of the action that is not intended then your not contracepting.

For therapeutic reasons which means you have to have medical condition which is being corrected by the medicine. If there is nothing medically wrong to treat it is immoral to take something which would make you sterile. Fertility is not an medical condition requiring of treatment.

 

[Nate13]

I agree-but infertility is an intended side effect if you’re using to prevent conception from rape “just in case”.

And yet again we are back to the original problem. Is the act of rape supposed to be properly ordered towards procreation? If a woman’s rapist is wearing a condom is she supposed to tell him to take it off if he is going to rape her? If sex is supposed to be a complete gift of oneself, is the woman who is being raped going against the unitive meaning of sex if she doesn’t consent? Rape is not the conjugal act.