If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

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…

What? You’re changing your mind now too?? Lol.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

…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.”

Actually, I disagree. If the abortionist starts out just performing abortions for money but then comes to a point where she feels compassion for the young girls getting abortions, that IS a first sign that, perhaps, the abortionist is starting to realize that in abortions people are getting hurt.

IDK. I thought what the Holy Father said was pretty clear and made perfect sense. I think if you try and interpret it a different way you’re really twisting the words.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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.

1. You’re right, it can apply to all sorts of sinful situations.
2. The Pope didn’t come out and say this randomly he was being interviewed in a book and was asked a question about this, so he tried to word his answer as carefully as possible. The Vatican Newspaper only printed a small portion of the full quote, making it sound scandalous, and the rest of the world’s press ran with it.

 

[choose_to_love]

@thistle: Dignitas Personae does not appear to me to be addressing the question being discussed herein, i.e., whether such drugs are licit as a post-rape treatment. I am not sure you can extend it to such situations.

 

[LJN21]

I don’t really see how using drugs to stop ovulation after rape is really comparable to the morality (or lack of) contraception out side of marriage, because its not about contraception at all, its about about justice.

It is unjust (that sounds like a massive understatement) for the raper to attack his victim. She has the right to defend against his attack. If she killed him, in self defense, before he was able to finish the act she would be justified. He has no right to her body in any fashion, she has no requirement to give that part of herself to her attacker. She still however, would not have the right to attack any innocent life that might be a result of the attack.

In marriage, husband and wife have a right to each others bodies. That’s why denying each other sex with out good reason is sin. That’s also part of why contraception is immoral, its withholding apart of your self form your spouse.

In fornication, contraception is still unjust because most chemical contraception also have the abortive side effect. Back to the you can’t attack the innocent life. Barrier methods are still technically immoral because they frustrate the act, the couple is consenting so they have no rights to frustrate it farther. (Really just guessing on the barrier part of it based on what I’ve read in the past.)

 

[ahs]

What? You’re changing your mind now too?? Lol.

Yeah, I think so. The Catechism seems to me to suggest that contraception would not be an additional sin to fornication when fonicating with contraception. I think you were correct in that older thread.

My original thought was that since each sex act has to be ordered properly, then contraception WOULD be and additional sin (in fornication). But after looking carefully at the wording in the CCC, I also see that the sex act is ALSO ONLY to be between married persons…the “conjugal act”. However, with fornication, there is no “conjugal act” taking place…it’s just an illicit “carnal union”. In other words, if someone is fornicating, the contraception would be a moot point, wouldn’t it?

In other words, EVERY sex act is to be ordered to procreationANDunification. At the same time, EVERY sex act is for the married couple. Thus, the ends of the sex act are for the married couple. Anyone else having “sex” is just fornicating.

 

[Bookcat]

The Pope didn’t come out and say this randomly he was being interviewed in a book and was asked a question about this, so he tried to word his answer as carefully as possible. The Vatican Newspaper only printed a small portion of the full quote, making it sound scandalous, and the rest of the world’s press ran with it.

Here is the Holy See’s clarification:

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

 

[Debora123]

Actually, I disagree. If the abortionist starts out just performing abortions for money but then comes to a point where she feels compassion for the young girls getting abortions, that IS a first sign that, perhaps, the abortionist is starting to realize that in abortions people are getting hurt.

But you have to keep it in the same parallel. Actually DOING the abortion would never be considered a step towards moralization, like wearing a condom in certain cases is being said to be a step towards moralization. (if wearing a condom actually is a sin between unmarried people)

IDK. I thought what the Holy Father said was pretty clear and made perfect sense. I think if you try and interpret it a different way you’re really twisting the words.

What words did I twist?

 

[LJN21]

In other words, EVERY sex act is to be ordered to procreationANDunification. At the same time, EVERY sex act is for the married couple. Thus, the ends of the sex act are for the married couple. Anyone else having “sex” is just fornicating.

That doesn’t sound right to me. Why would the Catechism address the ins and outs of contraception while fornicating when its already said both are immoral. I don’t really seem them feeling the need to spend the time on a “I know we’ve already said these things are gravely immoral but if you decided to do both in tandem this is what your getting your self in to” part.

Even acts between unmarried couples are by there function procreative and unitive. That part doesn’t turn off because they aren’t married, that is part of why its immoral. They are lying to each other with the act. Contraception interferes with the natural function of the act, regardless if the act is licit or not.

Non abortifaciant contraception is allowed for the rape victim because she was unjustly attacked.

 

[Debora123]

Yeah, I think so. The Catechism seems to me to suggest that contraception would not be an additional sin to fornication when fonicating with contraception. I think you were correct in that older thread.

My original thought was that since each sex act has to be ordered properly, then contraception WOULD be and additional sin (in fornication). But after looking carefully at the wording in the CCC, I also see that the sex act is ALSO ONLY to be between married persons…the “conjugal act”. However, with fornication, there is no “conjugal act” taking place…it’s just an illicit “carnal union”. In other words, if someone is fornicating, the contraception would be a moot point, wouldn’t it?

In other words, EVERY sex act is to be ordered to procreationANDunification. At the same time, EVERY sex act is for the married couple. Thus, the ends of the sex act are for the married couple. Anyone else having “sex” is just fornicating.

Yes, that was my thought process initially too when I suggested that it wouldn’t be an “extra sin.” I just don’t see why fornication or “paid sex” would be ordered to unity and procreation, since marriage isn’t involved.

Besides, it makes more sense for the pope to say what he said about prostitutes wearing condoms if doing so wouldn’t add to the sin, and that’s what I was trying to convey in the last thread and in this one too a little bit.

 

[LJN21]

Yes, that was my thought process initially too when I suggested that it wouldn’t be an “extra sin.” I just don’t see why fornication or “paid sex” would be ordered to unity and procreation, since marriage isn’t involved.

Sex isn’t supposed to be ordered too… It IS Unitive and procreative by its nature. Contraception frustrates that and fornication is an abomination of that.

Besides, it makes more sense for the pope to say what he said about prostitutes wearing condoms if doing so wouldn’t add to the sin, and that’s what I was trying to convey in the last thread and in this one too a little bit.

He wasn’t talking about sin, he was talking about how it is a step closer to seeing other as other instead of seeing other as less than other. Any ‘extra’ sin is irrelevant to the point is was attempting to make.

 

[ahs]

That doesn’t sound right to me. Why would the Catechism address the ins and outs of contraception while fornicating when its already said both are immoral. I don’t really seem them feeling the need to spend the time on a “I know we’ve already said these things are gravely immoral but if you decided to do both in tandem this is what your getting your self in to” part.

Even acts between unmarried couples are by there function procreative and unitive. That part doesn’t turn off because they aren’t married, that is part of why its immoral. They are lying to each other with the act. Contraception interferes with the natural function of the act, regardless if the act is licit or not.

Non abortifaciant contraception is allowed for the rape victim because she was unjustly attacked.

Right, this is what I was thinking as well until I looked more closely at the terms used in the catechism. (And I’m not saying I’m right by the way, but this is where I’m at right now.)
The Church teaches that the “conjugl act” is ordered to procreation/unification. And the “conjugl act” is ONLY between married couples. Any act that is not between the marrid couple is fornication…and fornication is defined in the CCC, not as a conjugal act, but an illicit “carnal union”. The natural function of the carnal union (fornication) would be unification and procreation IF it were a conjugal act…but it isn’t…it’s just a carnal union. The unitive aspect does not exist because they aren’t joined in matrimony. And even though a carnal union can have the effect of procreation, it is not properly ordered toward procreation because it is not within the context of the marriage union.

This tells me that the non-abortifacient contraceptive is allowed in the case of rape because she was unjustly attacked…same as what you stated. There’s no change in that, only a change in the direction you come to it. When she was raped, it was not a conjugal act…it was a forced carnal union.

What I’m saying does not somehow make contraception licit in cases of non-marital carnal activity. It is still illicit because: -sex is ONLY for marriage AND -the conjugal act must always be ordered toward procreation and unification. So, contraception is still inherently disordered…intrinsically evil. But so is fornication. And if someone is already fornicating, the contraception is a moot point because they are having a carnal union outside of the conjugal act to begin with.

IOW, the carnal union has already, by its own nature, thwarted the unitive aspect of the sex act, and has made a mockery of the procreative aspect.

 

[Bookcat]

Sexual intercourse is by its nature ONLY to take place in Marriage and in way that is unitive and open to life.

Anything contrary to that --is contrary to that and in various ways and degrees.

(for example adultery is more grave than fornication…)

 

[mommamaree]

Recall that just as the procreative aspect has a physical reality, the release of sperm that may unite with an egg, so too does the unitive aspect have a physical reality. This is not just theology. The unitive aspect has a whole lot to do with the release of oxytocin, the bonding hormone. So even in fornication or prostitution, the unitive aspect is present, whether the participants intend it to be or not. God’s design cannot be thwarted just because human beings try to do so. Fornication and prostitution still has the unitive and procreative aspects present, even if the participants use contraception. Those aspects might be damaged by abusing one’s sexuality but contraception does further injury.

 

[LJN21]

Right, this is what I was thinking as well until I looked more closely at the terms used in the catechism. (And I’m not saying I’m right by the way, but this is where I’m at right now.)
The Church teaches that the “conjugl act” is ordered to procreation/unification. And the “conjugl act” is ONLY between married couples. Any act that is not between the marrid couple is fornication…and fornication is defined in the CCC, not as a conjugal act, but an illicit “carnal union”. The natural function of the carnal union (fornication) would be unification and procreation IF it were a conjugal act…but it isn’t…it’s just a carnal union. The unitive aspect does not exist because they aren’t joined in matrimony. And even though a carnal union can have the effect of procreation, it is not properly ordered toward procreation because it is not within the context of the marriage union.

I don’t think that is a correct analysis. The untive doesn’t just turn on at marriage its always there that is why prostitution and fornication are a mockery of the act.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is 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. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

It is Naturally ordered… we don’t order it our selves. Regardless of how the sex act happens its already by its nature unitive and procreative.

Yes when it talks about situation around marriage it goes in to deeper detail, because that is the only licit use of the act. The lack of speech about the procreative and unitive outside of marriage does not mean it can not happen outside. Your argument is not unlike trying to disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity because the bible says she remained a virgin until Jesus birth.

This tells me that the non-abortifacient contraceptive is allowed in the case of rape because she was unjustly attacked…same as what you stated. There’s no change in that, only a change in the direction you come to it. When she was raped, it was not a conjugal act…it was a forced carnal union.

No, its because the rapist has no right to her body.

IOW, the carnal union has already, by its own nature, thwarted the unitive aspect of the sex act, and has made a mockery of the procreative aspect.

Your right and wrong. “Carnal Union” is a mockery because the unitive and procreative are still there and the participants are mocking them by their actions.

The unitive aspect of sex isn’t just a rosy idea the Church has. There is chemical bonding that happens when someone as sex. This is a scientific fact. When the Church speaks of the Unitive that is what she is referring to.

 

[Debora123]

Right, this is what I was thinking as well until I looked more closely at the terms used in the catechism. (And I’m not saying I’m right by the way, but this is where I’m at right now.)
The Church teaches that the “conjugl act” is ordered to procreation/unification. And the “conjugl act” is ONLY between married couples. Any act that is not between the marrid couple is fornication…and fornication is defined in the CCC, not as a conjugal act, but an illicit “carnal union”. The natural function of the carnal union (fornication) would be unification and procreation IF it were a conjugal act…but it isn’t…it’s just a carnal union. The unitive aspect does not exist because they aren’t joined in matrimony. And even though a carnal union can have the effect of procreation, it is not properly ordered toward procreation because it is not within the context of the marriage union.

This tells me that the non-abortifacient contraceptive is allowed in the case of rape because she was unjustly attacked…same as what you stated. There’s no change in that, only a change in the direction you come to it. When she was raped, it was not a conjugal act…it was a forced carnal union.

What I’m saying does not somehow make contraception licit in cases of non-marital carnal activity. It is still illicit because: -sex is ONLY for marriage AND -the conjugal act must always be ordered toward procreation and unification. So, contraception is still inherently disordered…intrinsically evil. But so is fornication. And if someone is already fornicating, the contraception is a moot point because they are having a carnal union outside of the conjugal act to begin with.

IOW, the carnal union has already, by its own nature, thwarted the unitive aspect of the sex act, and has made a mockery of the procreative aspect.

I love logic.

 

[Debora123]

Recall that just as the procreative aspect has a physical reality, the release of sperm that may unite with an egg, so too does the unitive aspect have a physical reality. This is not just theology. The unitive aspect has a whole lot to do with the release of oxytocin, the bonding hormone. So even in fornication or prostitution, the unitive aspect is present, whether the participants intend it to be or not. God’s design cannot be thwarted just because human beings try to do so. Fornication and prostitution still has the unitive and procreative aspects present, even if the participants use contraception. Those aspects might be damaged by abusing one’s sexuality but contraception does further injury.

Would you also say rape has those aspects?

 

[LJN21]

Would you also say rape has those aspects?

That is part of why rape is so evil. You take an unitive and procreative act and torture a woman with it. Of course there is no intent on the part of the rapist for those aspects to be there, but that is the physical NATURE of the act. We can frustrate or mock the act, but we can’t change the nature of the act its self.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But you have to keep it in the same parallel. Actually DOING the abortion would never be considered a step towards moralization, like wearing a condom in certain cases is being said to be a step towards moralization. (if wearing a condom actually is a sin between unmarried people)

The Pope didn’t say prostitution was a step towards moralization, he said wearing a condom during prostitution was a step towards moralization.

Keeping the same parallel then if the abortionist lies to the young girl’s mother so that she doesn’t get in trouble for the abortion (I have no idea how this would work in real life, this is just for comparison’s sake), if he’s never done that before it might be a step towards moralization as long as he’s doing it out of a desire to stop the young girl from suferring any more than she already has. It’s still wrong, but perhaps it shows a stirring in the abortionist’s heart where he’s really starting to care about people.

What words did I twist?

Oh no! I’m sorry, I wasn’t thinking of you specifically at all, just in general. Sorry, ambiguous wording.

 

[LJN21]

Remember the idea behind moralization is not the the actions are remotely moral, but that the person is starting to think about another person, as another person, and not just a means to a end.