If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Corki]

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:

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?

It’s not a matter of taking a different “stand”, it’s more of a language difference.

If contraceptive fornication one sin or two? Does it matter?

Is armed robbery one sin or two? (one for the robbery, one for the gun?)

Is rape with a condom one sin or two?

It’s a distinction without a difference.

From a moral standpoint, it doesn’t matter if you fornicate, with contraception, without contraception or any other variation - it’s still a sin; it’s just a different variety of the same sin.

If you rape someone, it doesn’t matter if you do so with or without contraception.

In marriage, on the other hand, contraceptive sex and non-contraceptive marital acts are two completely different acts.

All of this is not particularly relevant to the topic of emergengy contraception as part of the medical treatment for a rape victim.

 

[Debora123]

It’s not a matter of taking a different “stand”, it’s more of a language difference.

If contraceptive fornication one sin or two? Does it matter?

Is armed robbery one sin or two? (one for the robbery, one for the gun?)

Is rape with a condom one sin or two?

It’s a distinction without a difference.

From a moral standpoint, it doesn’t matter if you fornicate, with contraception, without contraception or any other variation - it’s still a sin; it’s just a different variety of the same sin.

If you rape someone, it doesn’t matter if you do so with or without contraception.

In marriage, on the other hand, contraceptive sex and non-contraceptive marital acts are two completely different acts.

All of this is not particularly relevant to the topic of emergengy contraception as part of the medical treatment for a rape victim.

It seems like you’re dancing around the question for some reason…

But yeah, it is not relevant anymore so whatev’s.

 

[thistle]

*“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

The US Bishops position on this contradicts the instructions from the CDF document DIGNITAS PERSONAE because the morning after pill is not permitted. No exception is made for a rape victim.

Para 23 from said document:

1. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods, it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

As is known, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”. Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.

 

[LJN21]

Does the catechism actually specify that the sex has to be “voluntary and mutually pleasurable” for birth control to be a sin?

Or does it just say “no birth control”.

Because, um…if that’s the case…I know quite a few married couples who don’t have mutually pleasurable and voluntary sex.

Henceforth…

The Catholic Church has no issues with Birth control… its contraception that’s is the issue.

Married couples not happy about there sex life is a completely different mater than the issue discussed in this thread.

 

[sw85]

Bishops’ conferences routinely say weird and bizarre things that go against Catholic moral teachings (e.g., the Arizona bishops conference’s declaration on the death penalty a while ago, which flatly contradicted the Church’s millennium-old theological tradition). Episcopal conferences have 0 magisterial authority in principle unless their constituent members explicitly delegate it. Squat diddly nada.

More importantly, even if they did, the linked paper on the USCCB web site does not fall under magisterial protection, anyway. It’s a “fact sheet,” not an articulation of moral principle.

In juxtaposition, take this position paper of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which makes no such arbitrary and unprincipled moral exception.

 

[Debora123]

Bishops’ conferences routinely say weird and bizarre things that go against Catholic moral teachings (e.g., the Arizona bishops conference’s declaration on the death penalty a while ago, which flatly contradicted the Church’s millennium-old theological tradition). Episcopal conferences have 0 magisterial authority in principle unless their constituent members explicitly delegate it. Squat diddly nada.

In juxtaposition, take this position paper of the Pontifical Academy for Life, which makes no such arbitrary and unprincipled moral exception.

I completely agree with USCCB’s position on the death penalty… which is the same as that of JPII and our current pope. It doesn’t contradict anything.

 

[Corki]

It seems like you’re dancing around the question for some reason…

But yeah, it is not relevant anymore so whatev’s.

What did I not answer? Is it a sin for unmarried couples and prostitutes to have sex with condoms? Yes.

 

[sw85]

I completely agree with USCCB’s position on the death penalty… which is the same as that of JPII and our current pope. It doesn’t contradict anything.

No one said anything about JPII or the USCCB’s teachings on the death penalty. I referenced the (radically abolitionist) position of the Arizona bishop’s conference, which was not binding because it isn’t magisterial, any more than the document you link in the first page.

 

[Nate13]

Let me take a crack at this.

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

I’m not going to come down on either side of this, but rather I going to take a stab at why the Bishops have come out as they have on this. Contraception is wrong between spouses because it contradicts the very nature of the act itself. The Church teaches loving sex and contracepting are objectively opposed to each other. This is not the case with rape, an act never meant to be loving, where there would be no contradiction in attempting to prevent sperm from getting to where they can fertilize an egg. The act was never meant to be a loving act and thus taking steps to prevent fertilization is completely in line with whats going on.

If you think about it, if you say you can’t take steps to prevent fertilization that don’t endanger a potential life because its contracepting you would also have to say that the woman cannot attempt to get away while being raped because that would be “contracepting”. For instance lets say she manages to get away right before the man finishes. That would be pulling out and thus “contracepting” as well under that logic.

Fortunately in my opinion this is not what the Church says at all. 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.

 

[Debora123]

No one said anything about JPII or the USCCB’s teachings on the death penalty. I referenced the (radically abolitionist) position of the Arizona bishop’s conference, which was not binding because it isn’t magisterial, any more than the document you link in the first page.

I see. I guess I don’t know what you’re talking about then, since I didn’t read the link.

 

[Debora123]

What did I not answer? Is it a sin for unmarried couples and prostitutes to have sex with condoms? Yes.

I was asking if it would be 2 sins instead of one. Other people here who have addressed this issue had no problem being completely clear that yes, fornication is a grave sin, and fornication with contraception is an even greater sin.

 

[Debora123]

Fortunately in my opinion this is not what the Church says at all. 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.

Yes, thank you for being clear.

The reason why I’m so interested in this particular part of the discussion is because a while back I participated in a thread and I actually brought up that exact point - that the sin of contraception can really only happen within a marriage, since fornication is not ordered to unity/procreation anyway. Well, let’s just say I basically got crucified by everyone else involved for arguing that point.

Then I come to this thread and get mixed answers… some of you seem to think along the same lines as you, Nate… and others are adamant that yes, contraception is still a sin even in fornication, and even in prostitution.

I guess I’m just still bitter from the time I was attacked last time I made that very point, though it was months ago.

 

[Nate13]

Yes, thank you for being clear.

The reason why I’m so interested in this particular part of the discussion is because a while back I participated in a thread and I actually brought up that exact point - that the sin of contraception can really only happen within a marriage, since fornication is not ordered to unity/procreation anyway. Well, let’s just say I basically got crucified by everyone else involved for arguing that point.

Then I come to this thread and get mixed answers… some of you seem to think along the same lines as you, Nate… and others are adamant that yes, contraception is still a sin even in fornication, and even in prostitution.

I guess I’m just still bitter from the time I was attacked last time I made that very point, though it was months ago.

Hmm yeah I thought I’d seen this thread before from you. I would have thought I would have voiced something similar to what I voiced above in your past thread. I don’t think any specific opinion has been voiced authoritatively by the Church on this issue that really completely settles it. I personally lean towards saying it is possible that fertilization can morally be prevented in cases of rape when its been established that there is no chance of accidentally killing an already conceived baby. That check can be accomplished rather quickly actually and I believe the bishops have brought up that point when speaking on the issue.

If someone could provide evidence of the sin of contraception being applied outside of marriage in a source of value like the Catechism I might reconsider my opinion.

However if you define contraception broadly as just the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex, then that would encompass all forms of sexual immorality within marriage or outside of marriage and could really just be termed unchastity as it is in the Bible.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hmm yeah I thought I’d seen this thread before from you. I would have thought I would have voiced something similar to what I voiced above in your past thread. I don’t think any specific opinion has been voiced authoritatively by the Church on this issue that really completely settles it. I personally lean towards saying it is possible that fertilization can morally be prevented in cases of rape when its been established that there is no chance of accidentally killing an already conceived baby. That check can be accomplished rather quickly actually and I believe the bishops have brought up that point when speaking on the issue.

If someone could provide evidence of the sin of contraception being applied outside of marriage in a source of value like the Catechism I might reconsider my opinion.

However if you define contraception broadly as just the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex, then that would encompass all forms of sexual immorality within marriage or outside of marriage and could really just be termed unchastity as it is in the Bible.

Well yes, under that definition, virtually all sex (married or otherwise) could be considered contraception.

 

[Debora123]

Hmm yeah I thought I’d seen this thread before from you. I would have thought I would have voiced something similar to what I voiced above in your past thread. I don’t think any specific opinion has been voiced authoritatively by the Church on this issue that really completely settles it. I personally lean towards saying it is possible that fertilization can morally be prevented in cases of rape when its been established that there is no chance of accidentally killing an already conceived baby. That check can be accomplished rather quickly actually and I believe the bishops have brought up that point when speaking on the issue.

If someone could provide evidence of the sin of contraception being applied outside of marriage in a source of value like the Catechism I might reconsider my opinion.

However if you define contraception broadly as just the separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of sex, then that would encompass all forms of sexual immorality within marriage or outside of marriage and could really just be termed unchastity as it is in the Bible.

Yes, it’s right here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8343095#post8343095

…The last post on that link is where it begins, and then just goes downhill from there. I see Corki was actually part of that discussion, and was on the side saying that fornication with contraception would still be 2 separate sins:

(From the other thread)

Do you have a source for that? I believe that both are sins - one is the sin of premarital sex and the other is the sin of contracepted sex. There is no way to have contracepted sex without sin - in or out of marriage.

Strange how things changed.

 

[Nate13]

Yes, it’s right here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8343095#post8343095

…The last post on that link is where it begins, and then just goes downhill from there. I see Corki was actually part of that discussion, and was on the side saying that fornication with contraception would still be 2 separate sins:

(From the other thread)

Strange how things changed.

Haha well my understanding of things has changed over time so I’m sure others have as well. Its one thing to know the Truth yourself, and a completely different thing to be able to describe it to other people in a way that is coherent.

 

[Debora123]

Haha well my understanding of things has changed over time so I’m sure others have as well. Its one thing to know the Truth yourself, and a completely different thing to be able to describe it to other people in a way that is coherent.

True that, brother. Lol.

 

[ahs]

I was asking if it would be 2 sins instead of one. Other people here who have addressed this issue had no problem being completely clear that yes, fornication is a grave sin, and fornication with contraception is an even greater sin.

Okay, so I’ve been thinking. (Actually I was watching a late night movie about Detective Dee and fire beetles…don’t ask…).

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.

I doubt that the actual truth is as cut and dry as this…and I’ll add a disclaimer that I am NOT a theologian and if you really want to know the truth, you should read ALL of Casti connubii, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, the Catechism, the Bible, etc…

 

[ahs]

Now, the poster who said (Corki maybe?) that you cannot have have contracepted sex without sin, whether in marriage or not, is absolutely correct. Within marriage, it is a sin for the reason of the unitive and/or procreative natures being thwarted. Outside of marriage, it is because of the fornication taking place, whether contracepted or not.

This is important to disguish in matters where people talk about “let’s teach our kids about safe-sex” thinking that since contraception only applies to marriage, it isn’t a sinoutside of marriage. Those people must not forget the glaring reality that fornication, in and of itself, is also grave matter…“gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children…” (CC 2353)

 

[Debora123]

Now, the poster who said (Corki maybe?) that you cannot have have contracepted sex without sin, whether in marriage or not, is absolutely correct. Within marriage, it is a sin for the reason of the unitive and/or procreative natures being thwarted. Outside of marriage, it is because of the fornication taking place, whether contracepted or not.

This is important to disguish in matters where people talk about “let’s teach our kids about safe-sex” thinking that since contraception only applies to marriage, it isn’t a sinoutside of marriage. Those people must not forget the glaring reality that fornication, in and of itself, is also grave matter…“gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children…” (CC 2353)

Well of course we all know fornication is a sin! Lol. …And I clarified that in my argument many many times.

That wasn’t the specific topic being discussed. The topic being discussed was whether or not contracepted fornication would be an EVEN GRAVER matter than fornication ALONE… 2 sins instead of just one, if you will. In the other thread, I was saying I thought it wouldn’t be, while the other posters were convinced that it absolutely would.

That’s why I was confused when I came to this thread and got different answers from a couple people.