If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[ahs]

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?

I think of it more like this:

A mob boss puts out hits on teh guys who owe him money and can’t pay up. After some time of knocking off people, he starts to feel a glint of compassion and tells his cronies to start using painless methods during the knock-offs…maybe even let the guys have a final prayer of whatever. What he’s doing is still a sin, a destestable crime against nature, but he has taken a sudden fisrt step toward morality…in that he has recognized the suffering of others and has felt some emotion in realtion to it such that he wants to alleviate the suffering in some way. He’s still a LONG way from doing the right thing, but he has taken a “step toward morality”.

 

[Glennford]

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?

Yep, so long as I was not sinning in the process.

I think the big pink elephant in the room is the idea of relying completely on the test (and the doctors who administer it) as our guarantee that there is not another human life involved and being put at risk. But, that is not what the USCCB is addressing, they are addressing a case where it is known with medical certainty that fertilization has not occurred.

 

[ValPal]

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.

This sounds like something straight out of a Monty Python movie.

 

[LJN21]

This sounds like something straight out of a Monty Python movie.

Or something they made a whole movie about…

 

[Debora123]

I think of it more like this:

A mob boss puts out hits on teh guys who owe him money and can’t pay up. After some time of knocking off people, he starts to feel a glint of compassion and tells his cronies to start using painless methods during the knock-offs…maybe even let the guys have a final prayer of whatever. What he’s doing is still a sin, a destestable crime against nature, but he has taken a sudden fisrt step toward morality…in that he has recognized the suffering of others and has felt some emotion in realtion to it such that he wants to alleviate the suffering in some way. He’s still a LONG way from doing the right thing, but he has taken a “step toward morality”.

That’s an intelligent analogy, but it isn’t the same thing, because in either case, the mob boss is still going to kill people. Of course, it’s MORE sinful to kill people in a painful way rather than without pain, but either way, he’s still going to kill.

But in the prostitute scenario, the 2 options are not 2 different ways of using contraception. The 2 options are: (a. fornication without contraception, and (b. fornication with contraception (supposedly 2 mortal sins instead of just 1).

So I think my analogy with the abortion parallels the contraception thing a little better…

 

[Debora123]

Yep, so long as I was not sinning in the process.

Right, so why would AB JUNEY actually be upset at the fact that it isn’t a sin??

 

[ahs]

Yep, so long as I was not sinning in the process.

I think the big pink elephant in the room is the idea of relying completely on the test (and the doctors who administer it) as our guarantee that there is not another human life involved and being put at risk. But, that is not what the USCCB is addressing, they are addressing a case where it is known with medical certainty that fertilization has not occurred.

Yes, that would be my concern as well…how do you KNOW if the test is 100% accurate? I’m sure technonly will be there soon, but is it there now?

 

[Debora123]

Yes, that would be my concern as well…how do you KNOW if the test is 100% accurate? I’m sure technonly will be there soon, but is it there now?

According to USCCB, such tests do exist:

Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.(3)

(3) For a thorough discussion of such testing protocols see P. Cataldo and A. Moraczewski (eds.), Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Ethics Committees (National Catholic Bioethics Center 2001), Chapter 11 (“Pregnancy Prevention After Sexual Assault”).

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

 

[Corki]

Yes, that would be my concern as well…how do you KNOW if the test is 100% accurate? I’m sure technonly will be there soon, but is it there now?

I don’t know of any medical test that’s 100% accurate. As long as the patient and health care providers were exercising due diligence and acting in accordance with the best information they had, there would not be any moral culpability.

 

[ahs]

According to USCCB, such tests do exist:

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

OH!! Okay, they are talking about the test for the hormone that indicates ovulation, I guess?

There are over-the-counter monitors like these that most women use as fertility monitors when trying to conceive…to get the best possible timing for conception. It tells you based on the presence of the hormone (whichever it is) if likelihood of ovulation is low, high, or very high. “Low” is when ovulation is not likely to occur soon (or something like that), “High” is that pre-ovulation phase when the hormone is present and ovulation is likely to occur, or have occured, and “Very High” means “time to make a baby”. They can also be used when trying to avoid conception…to let you know when not to have sex. They are supposed to be extremely accuarate.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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?

The deliberate use of contraception is never morally-neutral. It would be an additional sin to use contraception in a case of prostitution. So the couple are committing the sin of prostitution, the sin of contraception, and perhaps the sin of adultery. The more disordered the act, the greater the sin.

The basis for the sinfulness of contraception is the thwarting of the procreative meaning of a sexual act. So contraception is a sin even if the sexual act is extra-marital. The prostitute and client are thwarting the procreative meaning of sexual acts, and so they are committing the sin of contraception.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t know of any medical test that’s 100% accurate. As long as the patient and health care providers were exercising due diligence and acting in accordance with the best information they had, there would not be any moral culpability.

Yes, that’s correct. What is needed is moral certitude, not absolute infallible knowledge. The same is true for the exercise of conscience in many different cases. We would sin if we knowingly chose to act with the reasonable anticipation that our act would do more harm than good. But we need not have absolute certitude that our act will do more good than harm. Reason is always the standard, since the entire moral law is open to reason.

 

[ahs]

I don’t know of any medical test that’s 100% accurate. As long as the patient and health care providers were exercising due diligence and acting in accordance with the best information they had, there would not be any moral culpability.

Right…I didn’t think about that.

 

[thewanderer]

That’s an intelligent analogy, but it isn’t the same thing, because in either case, the mob boss is still going to kill people. Of course, it’s MORE sinful to kill people in a painful way rather than without pain, but either way, he’s still going to kill.

But in the prostitute scenario, the 2 options are not 2 different ways of using contraception. The 2 options are: (a. fornication without contraception, and (b. fornication with contraception (supposedly 2 mortal sins instead of just 1).

So I think my analogy with the abortion parallels the contraception thing a little better…

To be honest, I think your abortion analogy fails in the most important respect. As I understand it, the point is that the prostitute is recklessly endangering anothers health, and then, begins to realize that he/she is doing so and that it is wrong to do so. Because of this he/she begins to make an effort to avoid this evil (endangering anothers health). Yes it is true that the method chosen (contraception) is immoral, but the point being made is that the prostitute was previously doing something wrong (endangering others’ health) and then realized this was wrong and tried to take some action to avoid comitting this sin. Your abortion analogy completely fails to capture this aspect of the prostitute scenario. With the abortion scenario, all we have is someone who is previously doing nothing wrong, and then out of a sense of compassion decides to help/encourage someone to have an abortion. The example with the mobster actually captures this aspect of the prostitute scenario quite well.

 

[mommamaree]

I do not see anything remotely funny about that statement. The sad reality is that after a rape has occurred, the rapist’s sperm is swimming around inside the womb of the victim. Women who have been raped are oftentimes terrified about whether or not they will conceive a child by their rapist.

Rape is NOT sex. It is an act of aggression against another human being. It is not required to be unitive or ordered to procreation. To insist otherwise misunderstands the very nature of the act of rape.

Edited to add: in a related topic, a woman who begs her rapist to use a condom or to not ejaculate within her body is not implying consent or approving of mortal sin. She is simply begging for her rapist to show her some mercy in their violent act against her. Same as if a woman begs for her life to be spared.

 

[Bookcat]

From Nov 2007 (it is 5 years old -so there may be newer articles from legit sources out there too)

–From the National Catholic Bioethics Center (the Priest who appears on Catholic Answers)

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=301

 

[Debora123]

OH!! Okay, they are talking about the test for the hormone that indicates ovulation, I guess?

There are over-the-counter monitors like these that most women use as fertility monitors when trying to conceive…to get the best possible timing for conception. It tells you based on the presence of the hormone (whichever it is) if likelihood of ovulation is low, high, or very high. “Low” is when ovulation is not likely to occur soon (or something like that), “High” is that pre-ovulation phase when the hormone is present and ovulation is likely to occur, or have occured, and “Very High” means “time to make a baby”. They can also be used when trying to avoid conception…to let you know when not to have sex. They are supposed to be extremely accuarate.

Yup!

The Marquette method, baby!

Lol, it’s amazing how much I’ve learned from being on CAF for the past 2 years…

 

[Ron_Conte]

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 disagree. The basis for the distinction between direct and indirect contraception is like the distinction between direct and indirect abortion. It is based on the moral object, not on intention or circumstances.

Veritatis Splendor, n. 80: These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

The intent of the person committing the act must be good,
and
the moral object of the deliberately chosen (willed) act must be good,
and
the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences.

These are the three sources (fonts) of morality. All three must be good for an act to be moral. A good intention is not sufficient, a correct choice of action must also be made.

IN the case of direct abortion to save the life of the mother, the Magisterium condemns this type of abortion as intrinsically evil. Despite the intention to save the mother’s life, the chosen act is inherently ordered toward the direct killing of the innocent prenatal.

The same distinction applies in contraception. If the chosen act is ordered toward thwarting the procreative meaning of sexual acts, then the act is direct contraception and is intrinsically evil. The Magisterium clearly teaches that contraception is immoral regardless of whether it is chosen as an end (for a contraceptive purpose or intention), or as a means to a good end (a purpose or intention that is not contraceptive).

 

[Debora123]

To be honest, I think your abortion analogy fails in the most important respect. As I understand it, the point is that the prostitute is recklessly endangering anothers health, and then, begins to realize that he/she is doing so and that it is wrong to do so. Because of this he/she begins to make an effort to avoid this evil (endangering anothers health). Yes it is true that the method chosen (contraception) is immoral, but the point being made is that the prostitute was previously doing something wrong (endangering others’ health) and then realized this was wrong and tried to take some action to avoid comitting this sin. Your abortion analogy completely fails to capture this aspect of the prostitute scenario. With the abortion scenario, all we have is someone who is previously doing nothing wrong, and then out of a sense of compassion decides to help/encourage someone to have an abortion. The example with the mobster actually captures this aspect of the prostitute scenario quite well.

Eh, I didn’t really think it did, because with the mob example the 2 options are these:

1. Kill someone in a painful manner
2. Kill someone in a painless manner and allowing them to pray before being killed

The point is to show that option 2 is a “step in the right direction”… but of course it’s a step in the right direction because option 2 is less sinful!

With the prostitute example, the 2 options are:

1. Fornication with contraception
2. Fornication without contraception

Obviously, option 1 is more sinful than option 2, yet we are supposed to reconcile that option 1 is a step in the right direction?

I don’t think the 2 examples line up well at all.

 

[Ron_Conte]

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

I disagree with those who say that rape is not a sexual act. Yes, rape is a type of violence. But what makes rape worse than other types of violence is that it is also a sexual act. Rape is a sexual act without consent. It is always a type of moral violence, and frequently also a type of physical violence.

Any sin can be made more sinful by being more gravely disordered. So rape of an adult is gravely immoral. The rape of child is graver still. The greater the disorder the greater the sin.