If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

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.

I understand.

I didn’t mean to come off insensitive, I just thought it was kinda funny the way the poster said “the sperm is an unjust aggressor.” Of course, it’s the truth, and it’s awful, it was just funny to me the way she/he worded it.

 

[runningdude]

From what I thought I understood, contraception is considered by the Church to be intrinsically evil - always wrong, 100% of the time, no matter who what where when why.

You understood incorrectly.

 

[Debora123]

You understood incorrectly.

So I see.

 

[Glennford]

Right, so why would AB JUNEY actually be upset

Why is the sky blue?

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why are posts critical of Stephen Colbert deleted?

Many questions to ponder, little time.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

I see why you are getting caught up on this example, but I think it is just that you are focusing too hard on one aspect of whats going on that you don’t see the part that was actually being talked about.

With Prostitution

1. Fornication with contraception and without endangering health or even life of others
2. Fornication without contraception and with endangering health or even life of others

Both cases 1 + 2 are morally unacceptable, neither are ok. However, if you just simply look at the last aspect of each, whether or not they are endangering the health of another, there is clearly something about scenario 1 that is better than scenario 2. This is not to deny that there is in total a greater sin in scenario 1, or that both scenarios are entirely unnaceptable, but it is to say that with respect to this one aspect of the whole situation there is a sign of a recognition of some form of morality that ought to be adhered to.

I think the whole issue is even more difficult to entangle because oftentimes even though contraception is immoral it is not realized by the prostitute that it is so. So, in the mind of the prostitute scenario 1 has much less sin involved in it than scenario 2. So, even though the prostitute is not actually correct ultimately in his evaluation of the situation, the fact that he is making a move from one action which he sees as worse to another action which he sees as better is certainly a sign that he is recognizing both the existence and importance of a moral code.
Does that help clear things up?

 

[ahs]

Yup!

The Marquette method, baby!

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

HAHA!!! My wife and I have been using Couple to Couple League, but she’s been hearing great stuff about Marquette on her NFPBoard so she just ordered one of the monitors. (BTW, she just joined CAF as well, “mrs ahs”, but I doubt she will be on here much.)

 

[Debora123]

HAHA!!! My wife and I have been using Couple to Couple League, but she’s been hearing great stuff about Marquette on her NFPBoard so she just ordered one of the monitors. (BTW, she just joined CAF as well, “mrs ahs”, but I doubt she will be on here much.)

Oh cool!! You need to tell her to participate!

 

[ahs]

Oh cool!! You need to tell her to participate!

She spends most of her “free-time” (whatever that amounts to with 4 kiddos + homeschooling) on the NFPBoard (DelphiForums). If she does participate here, it’d be in the Family Life or Parenting subforums, though.

 

[Debora123]

I see why you are getting caught up on this example, but I think it is just that you are focusing too hard on one aspect of whats going on that you don’t see the part that was actually being talked about.

With Prostitution

1. Fornication with contraception and without endangering health or even life of others
2. Fornication without contraception and with endangering health or even life of others

Both cases 1 + 2 are morally unacceptable, neither are ok. However, if you just simply look at the last aspect of each, whether or not they are endangering the health of another, there is clearly something about scenario 1 that is better than scenario 2. This is not to deny that there is in total a greater sin in scenario 1, or that both scenarios are entirely unnaceptable, but it is to say that with respect to this one aspect of the whole situation there is a sign of a recognition of some form of morality that ought to be adhered to.

I think the whole issue is even more difficult to entangle because oftentimes even though contraception is immoral it is not realized by the prostitute that it is so. So, in the mind of the prostitute scenario 1 has much less sin involved in it than scenario 2. So, even though the prostitute is not actually correct ultimately in his evaluation of the situation, the fact that he is making a move from one action which he sees as worse to another action which he sees as better is certainly a sign that he is recognizing both the existence and importance of a moral code.
Does that help clear things up?

Well I’m just having a problem with it because the same can be said about any sinful action involving similar type of circumstances.

Honestly, I don’t see the point in the pope having said what he said. I think all it did was just confuse a lot of people.

 

[Debora123]

She spends most of her “free-time” (whatever that amounts to with 4 kiddos + homeschooling) on the NFPBoard (DelphiForums). If she does participate here, it’d be in the Family Life or Parenting subforums, though.

How long have you been married?

Lol I told my husband once to come on here for fun and he absolutely will not. I guess I can’t blame him. While I’ve learned a lot here, it definitely did hurt my faith for probably the first year of me using it. It took a while for me to come around and be able to take in the good and leave out the bad from these forums. Because unfortunately, there is a lot of bad.

 

[ahs]

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.

I see your point, given that rape forcibly violates one’s “sexual intimacy”. But that doesn’t necessarily make it “sex”, per se.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142…

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; **the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving **they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:…

There is nothing joyful or mutually pleasurable or mutually self-giving about rape. So I think the author who is quoted in Post #16 is correct that rape is not intercourse…it is not “sex”, per se.

 

[thewanderer]

Well I’m just having a problem with it because the same can be said about any sinful action involving similar type of circumstances.

Honestly, I don’t see the point in the pope having said what he said. I think all it did was just confuse a lot of people.

Oh I agree! I think it has just ended up spreading confusion without really being helpful, I was just trying to help explain what was meant.

(In case it helps, the Pope did specifically say that using condoms was not a moral alternative, so he wasn’t actually condoning condom use)

 

[edwest2]

My understanding that the drug can be given that delays ovulation so that the sperm effectively dies off on its own and no child is conceived. This is thought to be licit in some schools of thought because the rapist has no right to the woman’s body and in theory the sperm is an unjust aggressor.

I think its worth pointing out there is still quite a bit of debate on if the “plan b” can actually be used licitly for this cause.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2008/feb/08022906

After carefully reading the article, the answer is still no.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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”

Please provide a quote from the Pope that states “it could be a step toward morality.”

Peace,
ED

 

[Debora123]

Oh I agree! I think it has just ended up spreading confusion without really being helpful, I was just trying to help explain what was meant.

(In case it helps, the Pope did specifically say that using condoms was not a moral alternative, so he wasn’t actually condoning condom use)

Haha yeah.

And I know what the Holy Father said, but I still don’t think he was very clear at all about the whole thing.

Of course, the Vatican interpreted it a certain way and addressed it, but anyone else can read exactly what the pope said and have a completely different interpretation because he just was not very clear!

Having said that condoms are not a moral alternative to prostitution/fornication didn’t really help most people much… because obviously the moral alternative to those actions is to not engage in those actions to begin with! Lol.

I know that when I first read what the pope said I thought he meant one thing, and then I came on here and people were posting some formal sort of Vatican news about what the pope ACTUALLY meant, and I was just like “Huh? Really??”

I’m still trying to figure out what the purpose of that whole fiasco was… if there was a purpose to it at all. Though I’d like to think the Pope is too intelligent to have just come out and made comments like that as a mistake.

 

[ahs]

How long have you been married?

Lol I told my husband once to come on here for fun and he absolutely will not. I guess I can’t blame him. While I’ve learned a lot here, it definitely did hurt my faith for probably the first year of me using it. It took a while for me to come around and be able to take in the good and leave out the bad from these forums. Because unfortunately, there is a lot of bad.

Just a little over 8 years.

HAHA! I use to joke with “mrs ahs” about getting on chat-boards and talking to “computer people”. Oh, how I used to laugh at how “into” the conversations she’d get. Now, here I am, doing the same. Since I got onto CAF, I’ve had to cut back on my other hobby forums…just not enough time.

I see more good than bad, and the bad I don’t really mind. I think I’ve gotten kinda contentious the past year (had a rift in the family over a year ago and learned not to be a door-mat and to stand up for the “mrs”) and this site helps me to keep myself in check. Since it’s mostly geared toward Church teaching, it helps me to be more objective in my arguments, find the good in people’s opinions even if I vehemently disagree, and makes me learn how to argue without being argumentative…discuss without the “cuss”.

But I digress…back to contraception and determining if rape can be sex!

 

[edwest2]

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.

I suggest you read the following:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Debora123]

Please provide a quote from the Pope that states “it could be a step toward morality.”

Peace,
ED

The exact quotes were these:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”

And then again:

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This line of thinking has always disturbed me. If you are pregnant and it isn’t your fault you can get help. If you were selfish enough to enjoy sex with someone you love then you deserve whatever life-altering consequences you get. Eek it’s messed up.

 

[LJN21]

This line of thinking has always disturbed me. If you are pregnant and it isn’t your fault you can get help. If you were selfish enough to enjoy sex with someone you love then you deserve whatever life-altering consequences you get. Eek it’s messed up.

No,if your pregnant they can’t do anything. They can only attempt to delay ovulation which naturally be before you are pregnant.