If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

Direct contraception is hte use of a contraceptive drug / object in order to prevent the natural act of procreation.

Indirect Contraception is when a medication is taken to solve a problem (i.e. exceedingly irregular and painful periods) that also happens to have contraceptive properties. Contraception is not the goal, its an adverse side-effect.

it’s all about intent.

I understand that, but we’re not talking about taking birth control pills to help regulate cycles. We’re talking about contracepting a rape. The intent is still 100% contraception.

 

[Debora123]

In regard to preventing conception in the circumstances of rape, the teaching of the Church regarding the evil of contraception in relation to sexual intercourse does not apply to rape simply because rape is not INTERcourse - it is an act of the aggressor only, and the victim has the right to repel the aggression before the act of rape begins, or during the rape, and also the right to expel or block the continuation of the act in the form of the aggressor’s sperm still invading her body. BUT, in the event that conception has occurred, or even MAY have occurred, the rape victim has no right to take measures which would destroy or endanger the newly conceived child. Obviously the new embryo is not an unjust aggressor but rather, like the woman, an innocent victim of a criminal act. To destroy this new life would simply be an abortion. (From the EWTN link/quote that Mary Gail provided)

Thanks you 2!

 

[Corki]

@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.

In a rape scenario, none of the above applies. Rape, stating the obvious here, is not about the total gift of self, it is an assault and a perversion of the sexual act. To prevent conception is to repel the attacker.

This.

ALL of the teaching of the Church on contraception in within the context of marriage.

My understanding is that proper use of such drugs is only to be undertaken after first checking for any applicable indicia of a pregnancy already being established. If there are no such indicia, treatment to prevent conception is licit. Needless to say, this is a very fine line, and the current state of medical tests to establish the existence of a zygote, whether implanted or not, is limited.

The Church universal hasn’t spoken on the finer points. At least one group of Bishops (Pennsylvania) released guidelines. They reasoned that the use of contraceptives after rape could be allowed in Catholic hospitals IF test confirm that the woman is not pregnant and has not already ovulated.

The reasoning was indeed based on the principal of unjust aggression.

Since the sperm in the case of rape is the result of unjust aggression, steps may be taken to prevent conception and that may include treatment of the victim with medications which prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/HOSPSEX.HTM

 

[Bookcat]

So basically, contraception is intrinsically evil only within a marriage? Meaning it is morally neutral when performed between unmarried people? (<----which is the category rape would fall under)

I would not call it “morally neutral” for “unmarried people”.

 

[ahs]

Thank you Ron and ahs for clarifying.

From what I understand now (and correct me if I’m wrong), it goes like this: contraception is considered intrinsically sinful but only when used in consensual intercourse between woman/man.

Which category do you think intercourse between a prostitute and a “client” would fall under? Would contraception in their case be neutral or would it be an extra sin on top of prostitution?

Prostitution is consensual, so, if contracepted, the act of contracepting is sinful, as well as the prostitution. There may be instances in prostitution where the “prostitute” is being raped, however, or being forced into prostitution (which I believe is still rape). Can we know which is which and whose intent is against a rape and whose is against conception during consentual sex?

(How do you spell that by the way? Consent to sex…consentual, or consensual, or other?)

 

[Debora123]

Prostitution is consensual, so, if contracepted, the act of contracepting is sinful, as well as the prostitution. There may be instances in prostitution where the “prostitute” is being raped, however, or being forced into prostitution (which I believe is still rape). Can we know which is which and whose intent is against a rape and whose is against conception during consentual sex?

(How do you spell that by the way? Consent to sex…consentual, or consensual, or other?)

Thank you ahs. I appreciate your knowledge here on CAF and your ability to explain your points clearly and charitably.

If I may, I have another question.

If contraception is still intrinsically evil within prostitution, then why did our pope say that it could be a “step towards morality?” I find this confusing because for me, it would logically follow that any act that is intrinsically sinful could/would NEVER EVER EVER be any sign of any type of moral reasoning.

It confuses me.

PS- It’s “consensual”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

*“Emergency Contraceptives” are multiple-dose oral contraceptives taken after intercourse. The pills have at least four possible mechanisms: (1) suppressing ovulation, (2) altering cervical mucus to hinder the transport of sperm, (3) slowing the transport of the ovum and (4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo. Which of these mechanisms is operative depends on when the pills are taken. If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. If taken after the LH surge which triggers ovulation, EC will not disrupt ovulation in that cycle, but can inhibit implantation of the developing embryo.

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.*

~ old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

I never like being at odds with the bishops but IMHO-and I may be, perhaps probably am, making an error in understanding-the morning after pill would be immoral even in cases of rape, for the simple reason that contraception is always immoral-the ends don’t justify the means.

I’d like to hear how their reasoning fits with natural law theory.

 

[ahs]

Thank you ahs. I appreciate your knowledge here on CAF and your ability to explain your points clearly and charitably.

If I may, I have another question.

If contraception is still intrinsically evil within prostitution, then why did our pope say that it could be a “step towards morality?” I find this confusing because for me, it would logically follow that any act that is intrinsically sinful could/would NEVER EVER EVER be any sign of any type of moral reasoning.

It confuses me.

PS- It’s “consensual”

No problem. (But I’ll be the first to admit I sometime forget my charity and resort to the occassional slap-fest.)

I read part of that address by the Pope. What I got from it was that, in choosing to use contraceptives (condoms in this case) these prostitutes were showing regard to other humans. It was out of concern for spreading disease that they were using the condoms, which showed some glint of compassion, if you will, toward their clients. So, in that way, it was a step toward morailty…recognaizing some sense of right/wrong in risking the spead of disease to other people.

 

[Rence]

I never like being at odds with the bishops but IMHO-and I may be, perhaps probably am, making an error in understanding-the morning after pill would be immoral even in cases of rape, for the simple reason that contraception is always immoral-the ends don’t justify the means.

I’d like to hear how their reasoning fits with natural law theory.

You’re forgetting why the Chuch forbids contraception. The Church forbids contraception because it interferes with the unitive property (and of course, the procreative property). With rape, there is no unitive property.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If contraception is still intrinsically evil within prostitution, then why did our pope say that it could be a “step towards morality?” I find this confusing because for me, it would logically follow that any act that is intrinsically sinful could/would NEVER EVER EVER be any sign of any type of moral reasoning.

It confuses me.

PS- It’s “consensual”

It’s a sign that perhaps the prostitute is starting to care about his clients, not wanting them to get pregnant or get STDs. It is still, in itself, immoral but it might be the first sign that a prostitute is realizing that other people may be harmed by his actions, and that is wrong.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You’re forgetting why the Chuch forbids contraception. The Church forbids contraception because it interferes with the unitive property (and of course, the procreative property). With rape, there is no unitive property.

It is also against the natural law. Sex, consensual or not, is always properly ordered toward procreation. Going against natural law is always a sin, although perhaps the intent does change things somewhat.

 

[LJN21]

It is also against the natural law. Sex, consensual or not, is always properly ordered toward procreation. Going against natural law is always a sin, although perhaps the intent does change things somewhat.

I think its more along the lines of you have the right to defend yourself and the rapist and his sperm are the unjust aggressors.

 

[Rence]

It is also against the natural law. Sex, consensual or not, is always properly ordered toward procreation. Going against natural law is always a sin, although perhaps the intent does change things somewhat.

Rape itself goes against natural law, and there is NO requirement from anywhere or anyplace that rape must be ordered towards procreation.

 

[ValPal]

I remember reading something about this a while back. It’s important to note that this is the opinion of the USCCB, NOT the Vatican (at least at the time I read about it). If the Vatican had to address this issue, there is the real possibility that the USCCB may have to change their policy.

 

[ahs]

It is also against the natural law. Sex, consensual or not, is always properly ordered toward procreation. Going against natural law is always a sin, although perhaps the intent does change things somewhat.

What they’re saying is that rape is not “sex”, per se (sex as understood in terms of natural law). Post #16 gives the best explanation I’ve seen so far from a Catholic source (other than ours…we the posters on CAF…).

I think its more along the lines of you have the right to defend yourself and the rapist and his sperm are the unjust aggressors.

Yes.

 

[AB_Juney]

…I’m very shocked by the fact that this is allowed, and I feel vageuly upset by it.

 

[Debora123]

I read part of that address by the Pope. What I got from it was that, in choosing to use contraceptives (condoms in this case) these prostitutes were showing regard to other humans. It was out of concern for spreading disease that they were using the condoms, which showed some glint of compassion, if you will, toward their clients. So, in that way, it was a step toward morailty…recognaizing some sense of right/wrong in risking the spead of disease to other people.

It’s a sign that perhaps the prostitute is starting to care about his clients, not wanting them to get pregnant or get STDs. It is still, in itself, immoral but it might be the first sign that a prostitute is realizing that other people may be harmed by his actions, and that is wrong.

Yes, I understand all that. I guess it still just doesn’t make much sense to me I suppose.

For example, we can all agree here that abortion is an intrinsic evil.

However, many pro-choicers view abortion as being a “compassionate” thing when it is performed to “help” a young girl who got pregnant due to rape, or to save the life of a lady whose pregnancy is putting her life in danger.

Of course, we know that they are wrong in thinking this way, but we can at least see how their intentions can be perceived as “a glint of compassion”… at least towards the mother.

…Yet we would never ever EVER say anything like “performing an abortion can sometimes be a glint of compassion towards young girls who have been traumatized and are carrying a great burden by no fault of their own.”

So how is it that we can have that attitude towards one intrinsic evil but not the other?

 

[Debora123]

I think its more along the lines of you have the right to defend yourself and the rapist and his sperm are the unjust aggressors.

 

[Debora123]

…I’m very shocked by the fact that this is allowed, and I feel vageuly upset by it.

Why would you be vaguely upset by this?

If you were raped, would you not want to avoid conception?

Or if you are male, would you not want your daughter/wife/sister to avoid conception if they were raped?

 

[LJN21]

I know right