If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[mgoforth]

Ah, but some people who have 1 night stands use the morning after pill as a form of contraception.

And in that case it would be contraception and it would be wrong. However, in the case of a rape victim, the intent is to protect the victim against a fluid that’s been placed in her body without permission. The intent is not to avoid conception…that’s a double effect.

Yes, I agree that the reason behind using it in rape cases is self-defense and that is why it is okay in this case. However, one could easily word this as a case where contraception is okay.

You could word lots of things in lots of different ways, but only one wording will be correct.

 

[Corki]

Is the USCCB’s teaching in line with the overall official Magisterium?

This is in question during the thread.

The Vatican has not yet ruled on this but there is from time to time, rumours that this question will be addressed (along with what to do about adopting already frozen embryos).

The USCCB teaching is really the teaching of the PA bishops. I believe the CT bishops issued a similar guideline document. It’s not really a “teaching” but more of guidelines for the ethicists at Catholic hospitals to use. The context really focuses (rightly IMHO) on treatment for the victim and not on the sex act. It’s not an outright approval of the practice by the whole Church by any means.

Your “pulling out” analogy does not work. The rapist is already sinning; pulling out will be part of the sin, not an added sin, if that makes sense. It’ another aspect of his rape.

The person being raped is not committing a sin, but if she takes contraception she is (that said, the sin is almost certainly not mortal considering the circumstances, of course

And I think there is a difference between willful addition of contraception into an already sinful act vs. contraception as a way to limit the effects of an unwanted aggressor.

The danger is that some people have taken a position that since only marriage is required to be open to life, then the prohibition on contraception does not apply to pre-marital or extra-marital sex. The next step is to say that contracepted fornication is actually BETTER due to the positive intent to avoid an unmarried parenthood or an STD. And that would be a very dangerous path to take.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

And in that case it would be contraception and it would be wrong. However, in the case of a rape victim, the intent is to protect the victim against a fluid that’s been placed in her body without permission. The intent is not to avoid conception…that’s a double effect.

You could word lots of things in lots of different ways, but only one wording will be correct.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the morning after pill does not protect against STDs. Therefore, the intent is to avoid conception, even in cases of rape.

 

[mgoforth]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the morning after pill does not protect against STDs. Therefore, the intent is to avoid conception, even in cases of rape.

It might be helpful to examine the “classic” double effect example: ectopic pregnancy. If an embryo implants in a woman’s Fallopian tube, it will most likely result in death for both. It is morally permissible to remove the Fallopian tube because it is a diseased organ…which unfortunately will kill the baby. But killing the baby is not the primary intent, it’s an unfortunate side-effect.

Similarly, preventing conception is not the primary reason that makes the morning after pill legitimate for rape victims. The true intent is to protect the victim from unjust aggression…in this case from the rapist’s sperm, which has already been mentioned on this thread. Preventing conception is a side-effect.

 

[mgoforth]

The danger is that some people have taken a position that since only marriage is required to be open to life, then the prohibition on contraception does not apply to pre-marital or extra-marital sex. The next step is to say that contracepted fornication is actually BETTER due to the positive intent to avoid an unmarried parenthood or an STD. And that would be a very dangerous path to take.

All sexual acts should be open to life, whether within marriage or outside. That’s because the sexual act itself is designed by God with procreation in mind. True contraception (what we’re talking about in this thread doesn’t qualify as true contraception) thwarts God’s design in all sexual acts and so it’s always wrong.

 

[Corki]

All sexual acts should be open to life, whether within marriage or outside. That’s because the sexual act itself is designed by God with procreation in mind. True contraception (what we’re talking about in this thread doesn’t qualify as true contraception) thwarts God’s design in all sexual acts and so it’s always wrong.

Agreed. The only place where we disagree is the math. I don’t consider this **two sins **but rather a graver version of the sin of fornication (or adultery or whatever extramarital sin is being committed). I think both positions are fully consistent with Church teaching.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

It might be helpful to examine the “classic” double effect example: ectopic pregnancy. If an embryo implants in a woman’s Fallopian tube, it will most likely result in death for both. It is morally permissible to remove the Fallopian tube because it is a diseased organ…which unfortunately will kill the baby. But killing the baby is not the primary intent, it’s an unfortunate side-effect.

Similarly, preventing conception is not the primary reason that makes the morning after pill legitimate for rape victims. The true intent is to protect the victim from unjust aggression…in this case from the rapist’s sperm, which has already been mentioned on this thread. Preventing conception is a side-effect.

The first case is a double effect. Removing the Fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy prevents the death of the mother. Losing the child is a side-effect.

The morning after pill really isn’t a double effect. The pill prevents ovulation and weakens the uterine wall to make conception difficult. The only danger the sperm pose to mom (that plan B can prevent) is pregnancy. If the pill also protected the victim against possible STDs, then a double effect could be argued, but that’s not the case here.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Agreed. The only place where we disagree is the math. I don’t consider this **two sins **but rather a graver version of the sin of fornication (or adultery or whatever extramarital sin is being committed). I think both positions are fully consistent with Church teaching.

So, the question comes up, does it matter if it is 1 mortal sin or 2? 1 mortal sin on the soul is enough to put the soul in danger. Do additional sins put one in additional danger?

Then the question arises to me. If a rapist (for some strange reason) offered to use a condom. Does the victim need to say no? This could easily be argued as double effect. The victim is probably more worried about HIV/AIDs than pregnancy.

 

[LJN21]

That’s not the same logic at all.

Perhaps you don’t understand all my posts explaining my position on this, and that could be my fault for not being able to be clear enough.

The point is, I don’t believe contracepting fornication would be a sin because I don’t believe fornication is called to be procreative in the first place. It is only called to stop taking place altogether.

Let me answer that from the Summa. Source (fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-sex.asp)
Note definition of term “venereal”: Of or relating to sexual desire or sexual intercourse.

The question: Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 1: Whether six species are fittingly assigned to lust? (seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason.)

Objection 1.It would seem that six species are unfittingly assigned to lust, namely, “simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice.” For diversity of matter does not diversify the species. Now the aforesaid division is made with regard to diversity of matter, according as the woman with whom a man has intercourse is married or a virgin, or of some other condition. Therefore it seems that the species of lust are diversified in this way.

Objection 2. Further, seemingly the species of one vice are not differentiated by things that belong to another vice. Now adultery does not differ from simple fornication, save in the point of a man having intercourse with one who is another’s, so that he commits an injustice. Therefore it seems that adultery should not be reckoned a species of lust.
(There are more, but I am going to cut it off there)

Aquinas replies:
I answer that As stated above (153, 3), the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed. And since a circumstance, as such, does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object which is also its matter, it follows that the species of lust must be assigned with respect to its matter or object.

Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is “simple fornication,” which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is “incest,” which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is “adultery,” if under the authority of her father, it is “seduction,” in the absence of violence, and “rape” if violence be employed.

These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of the man, because in the venereal act the woman is passive and is by way of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated above (Objection 1) that the aforesaid species are assigned with regard to a difference of matter.

Reply to Objection 1. The aforesaid diversity of matter is connected with a formal difference of object, which difference results from different modes of opposition to right reason, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (I-II, 18, 07), nothing hinders the deformities of different vices concurring in the one act, and in this way adultery is comprised under lust and injustice. Nor is this deformity of injustice altogether accidental to lust: since the lust that obeys concupiscence so far as to lead to injustice, is thereby shown to be more grievous.

In the above, you see Aquinas point out as separate a “Vice against Nature” those things that interfere with the begetting of a child attached to ANY sex act that interferes with conception, regardless of the form it takes (Rape, incest, etc…). He never separates the natural end of the venereal act (the begetting of children) from the legitimate or illegitimate forms it can take. Let me quote again** “On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow;”**

Note every legitimate, not only those not in the below cases, but EVERY Venereal act.
And then again in reply to objection 2, he points out that an act can contain multiple sins in one act. In the case of Adultery has injustice and lust at the same time. Such is also the case in fornication WITH a condom, vs. a lesser but still serious sin of fornication which is not contraceptive.

 

[LJN21]

Let me answer that from the Summa. Source (fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-sex.asp)
Note definition of term “venereal”: Of or relating to sexual desire or sexual intercourse.

The question: Summa Theologiae II-II, 154, 1: Whether six species are fittingly assigned to lust? (seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason.)

 

[mgoforth]

The morning after pill really isn’t a double effect. The pill prevents ovulation and weakens the uterine wall to make conception difficult. The only danger the sperm pose to mom (that plan B can prevent) is pregnancy. If the pill also protected the victim against possible STDs, then a double effect could be argued, but that’s not the case here.

AFAIK, only some medications weaken the uterine wall.

Yes, from the victims point of view, it can be seen as self-defense and not contraception, because the victim did not intend to have sex or to have sperm placed in her body. Therefore it can be called double effect if conception is prevented. The victim is simply protecting a part of her body (the egg) from attack by a body part of an unauthorized intruder (the rapist’s sperm). If the medication prevents ovulation and does nothing to kill a developing fetus then it’s strictly self-defense.

 

[mommamaree]

Well this thread seriously took a turn for the worse…

Plan B, aka the morning-after pill, is also referred to as EC, or Emergency Contraception. It is a high dose of oral contraceptives. Those posters who were saying that the morning-after pill is not contraception were wrong.

Rape is an act of forcible violation of sexual intimacy of the victim. The woman being raped has no moral obligation whatsoever to keep the violent act open to life. She may use the EC if, after testing is done it is determined that she is not already pregnant nor ovulating. EC prevents ovulation. It does not attack sperm. It merely protects her egg from the unjust aggressor, which is sperm, thereby preventing conception, which means it acts as a contraceptive. She may also ask her rapist to show her some mercy and wear a condom or use withdrawal to avoid impregnating her. (Note: the only challenge here would be later there may be less DNA material to collect to make a positive ID on the suspect.)

Rape is not a sexual act in which the victim is required to allow conception. Period. There have been plenty of quotes from the CCC and links from the Catholic Education Resource Center already provided in this thread. Rape violates the sexual intimacy of the victim, but it is not ever to be considered sexual intercourse.

:banghead:

 

[mommamaree]

Using contraception is always wrong (grave matter) in God’s eyes, the situation does not make a difference. Notice I didn’t say it was automatically a mortal sin, because I’m sure you’re aware of that grave matter is only one of the three necessary conditions. But certainly using contraception is 100% wrong whether the situation is sex within marriage, fornication, adultery…yes even rape. Although with rape, the actual sexual assault is a million times more evil than the contraception…but they’re both evil.

And it doesn’t matter whether fornication is called to be procreative in the mind of the sinner. What matters is that the sexual act is always called to be open to life by God.

Emphasis added is mine.

This is wrong. Absolutely against what the CCC and the USCCB says.
Rape is not a sexual act. It is a forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of a person. If the victim were to use contraception to protect her egg from the rapist’s sperm, she would not be sinning. Similarly, if she begged the rapist to wear a condom, she would not be sinning.

 

[mommamaree]

Yeah, I agree.

The thing is, sex is naturally ordered towards life. It just is. Rape doesn’t change that. A woman who is raped can get pregnant. And contraception is wrong. It is INTRINSICALLY evil. This means no matter the situation, including rape.

This is wrong. This is not in line with what the CCC and the USCCB has said regarding this matter. Rape is NOT sex. It is a forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of a person. It is not the same as sexual intercourse.

 

[LJN21]

Emphasis added is mine.

This is wrong. Absolutely against what the CCC and the USCCB says.
Rape is not a sexual act. It is a forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of a person. If the victim were to use contraception to protect her egg from the rapist’s sperm, she would not be sinning. Similarly, if she begged the rapist to wear a condom, she would not be sinning.

That is not right either. It is a sexual act. Not sure how you deny something that involves sex as not an sexual act. The victim just has the right to defend her self form an unjust aggressor.

 

[mommamaree]

Is the USCCB’s teaching in line with the overall official Magisterium?

This is in question during the thread.

Your “pulling out” analogy does not work. The rapist is already sinning; pulling out will be part of the sin, not an added sin, if that makes sense. It’ another aspect of his rape.

The person being raped is not committing a sin, but if she takes contraception she is (that said, the sin is almost certainly not mortal considering the circumstances, of course).

No. This is absolutely wrong. This is merely the opinion of Marc Anthony, CAF member, and not at all in line with the teaching of the Church, either the CCC or the USCCB, and should not be taken as authoritative teaching.

Marc Anthony, you need to be very careful here. You are not saying that this is your opinion. Instead you are stating that the victim would be sinning. You have no authority to say that and you are speaking against pastoral council that states otherwise.

 

[mommamaree]

Debora, why are you putting words in my mouth? Not appreciated.

No, I would not disagree with the USCCB. You’ve simply misunderstood what I said. If a woman who was raped takes the morning after pill (as long as fertilization has not occurred) then it’s not contraception. It’s self-defense. OTOH, if a rapist uses a condom when he commits his act, it is contraception.

Sex slaves using diaphragms is not contraception. Please read about double effect.

However, your last example…even though you’ve chosen to phrase it in a very loaded way, would be contraception…and would be wrong. “Pulling out” in that case would be contraception. As I’ve said, contraception is always 100% wrong and I stand by that. As I also said, the rapist is guilty of a far more detestable crime - rape - and choosing to “finish” without “pulling out” doesn’t make the rape even one tiny bit more acceptable to God or me or anyone else.

In the future, please don’t speak to me with contempt.

No. No. No.
The morning-after pill is contraception. A rape victim is allowed to prevent conception (i.e. contracept).
Condoms and diaphragms are both contraceptive devices. Sex slaves are not required to allow for conception, as they are being raped.
Pulling out, aka withdrawal, is a contraceptive sexual technique. A rape victim is allowed to beg her rapist to withdraw at any time.
Victims are not required, either through natural law, moral/ethical law, divine revelation, or magisterial teaching to passively allow conception to occur simply because her sexual intimacy is being violated. At any time, she is allowed to repel her unjust aggressor, even if that is after the fact.

 

[mommamaree]

The situation you described is not contraception, it’s self-defense with the possible double effect of preventing fertilization. That’s why the USCCB allows it, not because they think contraception is ok sometimes.

No. This is still not right. Please read the CCC quotes and the CERC link provided earlier in the thread.

 

[mommamaree]

And in that case it would be contraception and it would be wrong. However, in the case of a rape victim, the intent is to protect the victim against a fluid that’s been placed in her body without permission. The intent is not to avoid conception…that’s a double effect.

You could word lots of things in lots of different ways, but only one wording will be correct.

This is absolutely wrong. The EC pill does not attack sperm at all. It is not a spermicide. It is a high dose of oral contraceptives. It prevents ovulation, thereby preventing conception.

 

[mommamaree]

All sexual acts should be open to life, whether within marriage or outside. That’s because the sexual act itself is designed by God with procreation in mind. True contraception (what we’re talking about in this thread doesn’t qualify as true contraception) thwarts God’s design in all sexual acts and so it’s always wrong.

Then why is it called Emergency Contraception? Why is the medication actually a high dose of oral contraceptives? Why does it function just as oral contraceptives do?

EC does NOT do anything to the sperm. It merely prevents ovulation, thereby preventing her egg from being fertilized by his sperm, meaning preventing conception (i.e. contracepting).