If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

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.

NO ONE has said this!!!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Is there a moral difference between “contracepted” fornication and “uncontracepted” fornication? If not, then we have to conclude that “contraception” outside of marriage, per se, is not wrong.

So, e.g., parents who institute a birth control regimen (pill, etc) for their unmarried daughter are not doing anything wrong. If fornication occurs, it’s only the daughter’s fault; and it’s only the fornication which is wrong, not the birth control regimen.

The idea behind it is rather problematic. Sort of like giving out condoms to teachers “just in case” they decide to become a pedophile.

Does it make sense technically? Yes.

Does it speak of a really terrible mindset? Absolutely!

 

[LJN21]

No, but that’s not really the question, right? The question is whether or not there is ANY circumstance a woman is permitted to impede conception. Since conception is an intrinsic evil I’m not sure if there is, unless I’m honestly misunderstanding somebody.

**

I think that is the question. If she is morally justified in killing him to defender self, how is she not morally justified in killing his sperm?

 

[Debora123]

Is there a moral difference between “contracepted” fornication and “uncontracepted” fornication? If not, then we have to conclude that “contraception” outside of marriage, per se, is not wrong.

So, e.g., parents who institute a birth control regimen (pill, etc) for their unmarried daughter are not doing anything wrong. If fornication occurs, it’s only the daughter’s fault; and it’s only the fornication which is wrong, not the birth control regimen.

I probably need to open another thread on this issue. I have (sort of) wandered off the reservation. But feel free to respond anyway.

It would still be wrong of the mother to do that for 2 reasons:

1. The pill is abortifacient
2. Providing her daughter with the pill would be like “condoning” fornication… fornication is something that shouldn’t ever happen, and if someone is fornicating the only thing they need to do is to stop.

 

[levinas12]

NO ONE has said this!!!

I was not referring to postings on this thread. I was alluding to some opinions in the media.

 

[levinas12]

This is absolutely 100000% false. NO ONE HERE has EVER said that taking the pill is ok. In fact, we’ve ALL been saying the exact opposite… the pill is abortifacient, and the only time it is ever ok to take it is for medical purposes.

OK - some people on this thread have argued that contraception is a sin only in the context of marriage.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’ve been pondering this thread…and I’ve thought of something.

What is intrinsically evil is separating the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect of the completed sexual act.

One way to separate the unitive and procreative aspects is contraception. That is what makes the use of contraception illicit, it turns the sexual act into a sterile act.

So I think that the phrase “contraception is intrinsically evil” is not actually completely correct. Removing the procreative aspects from the unitive sexual act is intrinsically evil. Contraception is one means of doing so. There are other means as well, all of which are condemned by the Church.

So we get to rape (an act committed by the man towards the woman in our discussion.)

Although it involves the sex act, it is not untive, because the woman is not consenting. If it isn’t unitive–then it is not meant to be procreative either.

The use of a contraceptive then is not wrong. Contraception is wrong because it separates the unitve aspects from the procreative aspects. Rape does not have unitive aspects, so the contraceptives are not separating that unity be preventing conception.

Hope that makes sense

 

[levinas12]

It would still be wrong of the mother to do that for 2 reasons:

1. The pill is abortifacient
2. Providing her daughter with the pill would be like “condoning” fornication… fornication is something that shouldn’t ever happen, and if someone is fornicating the only thing they need to do is to stop.

Good points.

So there is a big moral difference between “contracepted” fornication and “uncontracepted” fornication if by “contracepted” we mean the pill. Because, in that case, there is a risk of abortion.

 

[Debora123]

I was not referring to postings on this thread. I was alluding to some opinions in the media.

Oh ok, haha.

 

[Debora123]

OK - some people on this thread have argued that contraception is a sin only in the context of marriage.

But the pill is abortifacient. Everyone here has said the pill is sinful unless if it’s for medical purposes.

SOME people, myself included, have suggested that perhaps using barrier contraceptives (non abotifacient) outside of marriage is a moot point.

 

[Debora123]

Levinas, just so you’re clear, this is what a couple of us have been saying:

@deb: contraceptives are intrinsically evil within marriage, because they contradict the language of the body, are contrary to the free, total, faithful and fruitful gift of self that one spouse makes to the other in sexual intercourse, and distort the image of Trinitarian love in Whose image man and woman are created.

A marriage must be open to life and each marital act must be ordered toward procreation. Rape is not a marital act.

Rather I would argue that the sin of contraception can only occur within marriage based on the quote above. I believe the sin of contraception is only talked about in the Catechism within the context of marriage. Even an unmarried couple who is having consensual sex cannot be guilty of the sin of contracepting. They are fornicating, and possibly guilty of putting the life of a newly conceived child in danger, but not contracepting. You cannot contradict something that isn’t there to begin with.

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.

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.

You cannot call for a disordered act to be “ordered toward…whatever”. The act is already an abomination in its own right. It would make no sense to say, “each act of fornication must be properly ordered toward procreation and unification” because fornication is not supposed to exist in the first place.

Anyway, the question is: Is contracepted sex outside of marriage an “additional” or “compounded” sin, so to speak, in addition to fornication/adultery? Well, when the Catechism discusses contraception (2370) it speaks of the “conjugal union” (and quotes from Humanae Vitae). “…every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its [the conjugal act’s] accomplishment, or in the development of its [the conjugal act’s] natural consequences…”

So, we are talking about the conjugal act. And when the conjugal act is discussed, it is in relation to the marital union…the marital act…sex between the spouses. It is the conjugal act that must be ordered toward procreation and unification of the spouses.

When fornication is discussed, it is called a “carnal union” (CCC 2353) and not a
“conjugal act”.

So, to me, this means that contraception is intrinsically disordered in the “conjugal act” between spouses because it thwarts the unitive/procreative aspects of the marital union. But in a “carnal union” outside of marriage, there is no unitive aspect to begin with. Since there is no marriage, the unitive aspect does not exist (except only superficially in the minds of those committing that act perhaps, in some cases).

In other words, and this is just my take on it, contraception is a sin in marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual contact is fornication. That fornication is sinful whether contracepted or not, and adding contraception to fornication does not add to the sinfulness of fornication. While every sex act is supposed to be ordered toward procreation and unification, that truth comes hand-in-hand with the truth that sex is also supposed to be between spouses only.

Now, that said, an abortifacient contraceptive used in fornication WOULD carry an additional sin. Not the sin of contraception, per se, but the sin of abortion.

 

[Ana_v]

I also don’t see this as contraception but defending her self from the attack.

But are these things mutually exclusive? I fully agree that post-rape use of the morning after pill can be classified as an act of self-defense, but it is not evident to me how that eliminates or cancels out its contraceptive property. In fact, I think they cannot be separated.

Afterall, the self-defense intention via the pill is *tethered to *the woman’s anti-conception intention. How do we know this? Because if it were a naturally infertile/elderly woman who were raped, realistically speaking, she would not use the morning after pill, because the possibility of conception doesn’t apply in her case, so use of the pill would be superfluous; use of the pill is not inherently an act of self-defense.

It is *not *merely the presence of unwanted sperm inside her body that is being fought against (i.e. not merely self- defense that is taking place), in the case of a raped woman who uses the morning-after pill; it is the potential of become pregnant by that sperm, that she is fighting as well. In other words, she is not so much defending herself against his sperm per se, rather pregancy.

 

[Ana_v]

OK - some people on this thread have argued that contraception is a sin only in the context of marriage.

I concur with the above statement.

At least one person has argued (and others have implied this --even if unintentionally), that the sin of contraception * only *applies to the conjugal act, and their basis for saying this is that only the conjugact act (and no other) is required/ has the capacity of being unitive and procreative.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But are these things mutually exclusive? I fully agree that post-rape use of the morning after pill can be classified as an act of self-defense, but it is not evident to me how that eliminates or cancels out its contraceptive property. In fact, I think they cannot be separated.

Afterall, the self-defense intention via the pill is *tethered to *the woman’s anti-conception intention. How do we know this? Because if it were a naturally infertile/elderly woman who were raped, realistically speaking, she would not use the morning after pill, because the possibility of conception doesn’t apply in her case, so use of the pill would be superfluous; use of the pill is not inherently an act of self-defense.

It is *not *merely the presence of unwanted sperm inside her body that is being fought against (i.e. not merely self- defense that is taking place), in the case of a raped woman who uses the morning-after pill; it is the potential of become pregnant by that sperm, that she is fighting as well. In other words, she is not so much defending herself against his sperm per se, rather pregancy.

This is indeed my whole issue stated in a much better way than I have on this entire thread.

Another point-the unitive aspect of sex still exists in rape too, just horrifically perverted. Two people must still unite for the action to be defined as sexual intercourse. One of them may not consent, but union happens nevertheless.

Whatever other debates go on-rape is a horrible, horrible, sickening thing, isn’t it? Without it this whole debate is unnecessary.

EDIT: I know that you don’t share my reservations, but nevertheless this is one of my issues.

 

[Debora123]

I concur with the above statement.

At least one person has argued (and others have implied this --even if unintentionally), that the sin of contraception * only *applies to the conjugal act, and their basis for saying this is that only the conjugact act (and no other) is required/ has the capacity of being unitive and procreative.

Please read post #738 for a clearer understanding.

 

[Ana_v]

Please read post #738 for a clearer understanding.

I did, and it confirms what I said. Let’s compare some examples.

Nate13 posted:

“… the sin of contraception can only occur within marriage based on the quote above … Even an unmarried couple who is having consensual sex cannot be guilty of the sin of contracepting. They are fornicating, and possibly guilty of putting the life of a newly conceived child in danger, but not contracepting. You cannot contradict something that isn’t there to begin with.”

**
You** said:

“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 said:

"At least one person has argued (and others have implied this --even if unintentionally), that the sin of contraception only applies to the conjugal act, and their basis for saying this is that only the conjugact act (and no other) is required/ has the capacity of being unitive and procreative. "

I was simply paraphrasing what others have argued. It’s the same view articulated in different ways.

 

[Debora123]

I did, and it confirms what I said. Let’s compare some examples.

Nate13 posted:

**
You** said:

I said:

I was simply paraphrasing what others have argued. It’s the same view articulated in different ways.

Ok. I just wasn’t sure if you saw it, since you said “at least one person” though it was clearly a handful of us.

 

[Ana_v]

Ok. I just wasn’t sure if you saw it, since you said “at least one person” though it was clearly a handful of us.

The reason behind that is that I did not/do not recall, at the top of my head, the number of people that argued that position, though I knew it was more than one, but it would have been tedious to go through the whole thread to count/estimate.

 

[Debora123]

The reason behind that is that I did not/do not recall, at the top of my head, the number of people that argued that position, though I knew it was more than one, but it would have been tedious to go through the whole thread to count/estimate.

No probs!

 

[Nate13]

First, let me clarify that I don’t mean to say that I’m applying it correctly, only that natural law theory isn’t my invention. But he DOES say contraception is an intrinsic evil.

EDIT: And even if we accept it as self-defense, honestly I still don’t really see how Nate’s answers make much sense, actually.

No one here is arguing contraception is not an intrinsic evil or can ever be justified. We are speaking past each other because we are using different definitions of contraception. Father Tad’s statement on the topic shows that he does not consider it to be a contraceptive act though. I don’t have any more arguments to give to try and show you why I don’t view it as a contraceptive act though, so lets just leave it be. I recommend you print off Father Tad’s article on the subject and show your theology teacher. See what he/she thinks about it.