If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[edwest2]

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.”

Thank you very much. So, it is a first step but not a real or moral solution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Corki]

Sorry, I was on the phone with my mom when I typed that so it didn’t come out like I’d hoped.

If you are raped and you haven’t ovulated you can prevent pregnancy.

But if you got yourself in to this mess you should accept your punishment.

Still the same line of thinking and it still disturbs me.

Are you equating the pregnacy with punishment?

This is not at all what the Church teaching is. The only one who should be punished is the rapist. If possible, emergency contraception can be used to prevent the creation of a new life, but if that’s not possible, the baby should not be the one to be punished for the rapist’s act.

 

[Bookcat]

The Holy See’s response:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you very much. So, it is a first step but not a real or moral solution.

Peace,
Ed

The Holy See’s clarification:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Are you equating the pregnacy with punishment?

This is not at all what the Church teaching is. The only one who should be punished is the rapist. If possible, emergency contraception can be used to prevent the creation of a new life, but if that’s not possible, the baby should not be the one to be punished for the rapist’s act.

No…I’m just pointing out that the church’s position makes children punishments. “You can get out of it if it isn’t your fault, but if you dared to be sexual then you deserve what you get…” is not a great attitude to have towards children or women.

 

[Bookcat]

No…I’m just pointing out that the church’s position makes children punishments. “You can get out of it if it isn’t your fault, but if you dared to be sexual then you deserve what you get…” is not a great attitude to have towards children or women.

Thankfully such is not the attitude the Church has.

Rather that sex is the sacred act of husband and wife and that it involves both their love and openness to new life. If some serious reason comes up (like finances etc) one may avoid during the fertile time. The attitude is that women and children are good! As is the marital embrace and marriage itself.

Tis not a punishment --but a great gift that has yes come to be via not good means --but yet still remains a wonder to behold and to hold in itself.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Thankfully such is not the attitude the Church has.

Rather that sex is the sacred act of husband and wife and that it involves both their love and openness to new life. If some serious reason comes up (like finances etc) one may avoid during the fertile time. The attitude is that women and children are good! As is the marital embrace and marriage itself.

Tis not a punishment --but a great gift that has yes come to be via not good means --but yet still remains a wonder to behold and to hold in itself.

You can say that, but it is certainly not what the policy on EC shows.

 

[Bookcat]

You can say that, but it is certainly not what the policy on EC shows.

Huh?

What I have noted is what is the case.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the works of Bl. Pope John Paul II on the Theology of the Body are wonderful sources.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Huh?

What I have noted is what is the case.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the works of Bl. Pope John Paul II on the Theology of the Body are wonderful sources.

Then reconcile what you have said with the policy on EC. Why is it that a woman can prevent ovulation if and only if sex was not her fault?

 

[Bookcat]

Then reconcile what you have said with the policy on EC. Why is it that a woman can prevent ovulation if and only if sex was not her fault?

EC?

Do not know that one.

But is there a difference between a wife contracting during her attempted marital act with her husband and a woman preventing the conception from some guy attacking her and raping her?

Yes of course.

Just as there is a difference between a wife shoving her peaceful husband from the moving car and a woman shoving an attacker away as he is seeking to rape her --or even using some serious force (proportional force) to defend herself.

(ah just figured out the EC)

 

[Bookcat]

For a good run down (it is from 2007 --so do not know of anything has changed):

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=301

 

[Debora123]

Then reconcile what you have said with the policy on EC. Why is it that a woman can prevent ovulation if and only if sex was not her fault?

Because contraception is wrong ONLY WHEN it is used between 2 consenting people of the opposite sex.

 

[Corki]

No…I’m just pointing out that the church’s position makes children punishments. “You can get out of it if it isn’t your fault, but if you dared to be sexual then you deserve what you get…” is not a great attitude to have towards children or women.

I see what you are saying but the Church NEVER sees children as a punishment. That’s why the Church’s stance on contraception meshes perfectly with her stance on children.

 

[Bookcat]

Then reconcile what you have said with the policy on EC. Why is it that a woman can prevent ovulation if and only if sex was not her fault?

For a good run down (it is from 2007 —more may have been discussed etc since)

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=301

PS: I do not know what the current discussion etc is in regards to this question in the Church. The quote given before by the other poster – of is from the OLD-- USCCB site. It too is dated.

(hinges basically on what is taking place – in the use of said chemical --as noted in the above article)

 

[lerapt78]

To be honest, I think this does contradict the general position of the Catholic Church with regard to contraception in general.

I think the Catholic Church has adopted this particular position either out of genuine concern for female rape victims, or because (and this is the more cynical part of me speaking) they know its in their interest to pretend to be concerned about female rape victims who don’t want to carry their rapists child.

But its possible that I am being too cynical:shrug:

I think I understand your post because it *can *seem like a contradiction at first. However, if the Church supported contraceptives out of only a phony concern for rape victims, then the Church would also contradict itself by allowing abortion for rape victims (which it does not), for this would also be its best interests if the church were only interested in winning popular opinion. (Instead, the Church would offer counsel and support if the woman chose not to keep her child and give him/her up for adoption).

The reason the Church permits post-rape contraception but not post-rape abortion is because the rape was not the loving, selfless sexual act it was meant to be, and the contraception is not meant to absolve one of responsibility, but rather to thwart the outcome of a very unnatural act. The reason abortion is not allowed to thwart the same outcome of the same unnatural act is not because the rape is any less reprehensible, or the potential outcome is any different, but rather because abotion takes an innocent life that has already been created. That’s still not a popular stance to many, but the Church stands firm on the issue.

Sorry, I was on the phone with my mom when I typed that so it didn’t come out like I’d hoped.

If you are raped and you haven’t ovulated you can prevent pregnancy.

But if you got yourself in to this mess you should accept your punishment.

Still the same line of thinking and it still disturbs me.

Why would pregnancy be considered a punishment?

That is shocking!
It is really “permissable”?

The goal with this pill is still to prevent pregnancy, which is the same thing a condom or other abc does.
If one is to be “open to life”…then I thought it is to be under all circumstances.

All circumstances in which people participate in the voluntary and mutually-pleasurable act of lovemaking. Since rape does not fall under this category, the same concept does not apply.

We’ve discussed here how, if in the instance where a woman could die if she gets pregnant, she is still not allowed to do anything that would get in the way of her getting pregnant.

So this morning-after pill doesn’t jive with the rest of it.

In the case of this woman, she would certainly be encouraged to follow NFP in order to minimize her risk of pregnancy, the same as any other woman who is not at risk but simply wants to limit her amount of children.

 

[Corki]

Then reconcile what you have said with the policy on EC. Why is it that a woman can prevent ovulation if and only if sex was not her fault?

Fault is not the defining criteria. Sure, a woman who is raped is not at fault but there are other times when a woman might be facing a potential pregnancy due to sex that was not her fault. Maybe she was mentally ill or on medication. Maybe she confused her boyfriend with his twin brother. EC would not be moral in those situations. It is the unjust agression that is the defining criteria.

Rape always includes a woman not at fault but a woman not at fault does not always mean she was a victim of rape.

 

[Corki]

That is shocking!
It is really “permissable”?

The goal with this pill is still to prevent pregnancy, which is the same thing a condom or other abc does.
If one is to be “open to life”…then I thought it is to be under all circumstances.

We’ve discussed here how, if in the instance where a woman could die if she gets pregnant, she is still not allowed to do anything that would get in the way of her getting pregnant.

So this morning-after pill doesn’t jive with the rest of it.

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

 

[Debora123]

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

I would just like to point out that other posters here have said that even fornication is ordered to procreation… meaning, it would be a sin for prostitutes and unmarried couples to use condoms as well.

Is that not the case?

 

[Corki]

I would just like to point out that other posters here have said that even fornication is ordered to procreation… meaning, it would be a sin for prostitutes and unmarried couples to use condoms as well.

Is that not the case?

Fornication is not marriage, the requirement to be ordered toward procreation does not apply. That doesn’t mean it is moral to fornicate and contracept.

You can start the analysis from the sex act or from the context. The other posters started from the act, I started from the relationship context. Theologians have done both. Either way you end up in the same place.

Fornication is a sin.

Contraceptive fornication is a sin.

Contraceptive marital sex is a sin.

It’s not particularly fruitful to compare mortal sins.

 

[Debora123]

Fornication is not marriage, the requirement to be ordered toward procreation does not apply. That doesn’t mean it is moral to fornicate and contracept.

You can start the analysis from the sex act or from the context. The other posters started from the act, I started from the relationship context. Theologians have done both. Either way you end up in the same place.

Fornication is a sin.

Contraceptive fornication is a sin.

Contraceptive marital sex is a sin.

It’s not particularly fruitful to compare mortal sins.

I know fornication is a sin.

This doesn’t really answer my question… as it was a very straight forward question.

On the very first page of this thread, I said this:

So basically, contraception is intrinsically evil only within a marriage? Meaning it is morally neutral (moot) when performed between unmarried people

Several posters jumped in and said absolutely not, that fornication is a sin and using contraception while fornicating is a sin on top of a sin… TWO sins instead of one.

You seem to be saying this is not the case. So, where do you stand on this?