If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[mommamaree]

I want to tell you all right now, and I am being sincere. I am NOT trying to be difficult here. I’m not challenging things for the sake of it. I’m not even sure I’m right.

I want to make this very clear.

That was obvious to me, especially since you offered to contact your theology professor, which I think is a great idea. However, as a Catholic woman, I will abide by the pastoral council documents that I have read and if something as tragic as rape ever happens to me, I will take comfort in knowing that EC is a moral option for me. That being said, though, as a married woman, I might decide not to avail myself of the medication, unless my husband were in complete agreement at the time. The medication is not without risks. They are Class 1 carcinogens.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Heck, even ABORTION is justifiable when it falls under something we now call double effect.

Sometimes we just gotta think outside the box rather than try to live out every little detail of our lives based on the letter of the law. Sometimes we must look at the spirit of the law when a complicated, extraordinary circumstance comes up.

Exactly. Missing Mass is also a mortal sin. If one has a fever of 104 and can barely leave the bathroom, it is not a sin to miss Mass.

 

[Debora123]

I want to tell you all right now, and I am being sincere. I am NOT trying to be difficult here. I’m not challenging things for the sake of it. I’m not even sure I’m right.

I want to make this very clear.

Marc Anthony,

Though we’ve had our differences in this thread and perhaps in a couple others, I have always sensed you as a genuine poster. A lot of times I DO sense when someone has some sort of prejudice against me and disagrees just to be difficult. I know for a fact that it’s not the case with you.

Thank you for your honesty and your charity.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Heck, even ABORTION is justifiable when it falls under something we now call double effect.

Sometimes we just gotta think outside the box rather than try to live out every little detail of our lives based on the letter of the law. Sometimes we must look at the spirit of the law when a complicated, extraordinary circumstance comes up.

Abortion is never justified. Double effect does NOT involve killing the baby. This is pretty clear. Also, there are CLEARLY defined circumstances where it applies.

“Spirit of the law” is a problem because when does it stop?

“Spirit of the law” doesn’t exist. What DOES exist is situations where it’s difficult to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean certain teachings don’t apply. Things that are always wrong remain so.

That’s not to say circumstances don’t change things. But there are ways to figure out HOW.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I want to tell you all right now, and I am being sincere. I am NOT trying to be difficult here. I’m not challenging things for the sake of it. I’m not even sure I’m right.

I want to make this very clear.

I sensed sincerity as well. I didn’t think you just felt like arguing for entertainment value.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Abortion is never justified. Double effect does NOT involve killing the baby. This is pretty clear. Also, there are CLEARLY defined circumstances where it applies.

“Spirit of the law” is a problem because when does it stop?

“Spirit of the law” doesn’t exist. What DOES exist is situations where it’s difficult to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean certain teachings don’t apply. Things that are always wrong remain so.

That’s not to say circumstances don’t change things. But there are ways to figure out HOW.

Well, it’s not called abortion. It is never okay to directly kill the baby. However, baby can be delivered early due to medical necessity, even if the baby will likely die.

 

[mommamaree]

Abortion is never justified. Double effect does NOT involve killing the baby. This is pretty clear. Also, there are CLEARLY defined circumstances where it applies.

“Spirit of the law” is a problem because when does it stop?

“Spirit of the law” doesn’t exist. What DOES exist is situations where it’s difficult to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean certain teachings don’t apply. Things that are always wrong remain so.

That’s not to say circumstances don’t change things. But there are ways to figure out HOW.

Marc Anthony,
Would you kindly respond to post #404?

 

[LJN21]

Well then perhaps there’s a reason they only took certain PARTS of it and didn’t make the whole thing into a sort of official doctrine.

They didn’t source all of the bible so does that mean only the parts of the bible they sourced are official doctrine? There is only a page an a half of Cannon Law sited, is the rest of Cannon Law non binding? Ecclesiastical Documents only have a page and a half too… what about those that were not sited?

The CCC is not the WHOLE of doctrine. It is a concise manual of distilled thought directed towards most of lay peoples questions. Is was never meant to be the be all end all resource.

And for the record abortion is never permitted. The only thing close is a ectopic pregnancy and the only thing moral theologists agree on is you may remove the infected tube. That is not an abortion, that is a surgical procedure to correct a no long correctly working organ. The death of the child is an unintended, unwanted side effect.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hey, I left for awhile, but I do want to say thank you all for responding nicely to my last post.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So, are you saying that:

a woman may not do anything to prevent the release of an egg in order to not conceive a child by her rapist?

a woman may not beg her rapist to wear a condom?

a woman may not beg her rapist to withdraw before ejaculation?

a woman may not interrupt the sexual assault once it is underway because that would mimic the withdrawal technique?

a woman may not use any sort of spermicidal gel or douche after the assault?

Would you say yes to any of those five questions?

Here are some further questions:
When does a woman’s right to defend herself against her rapist begin?
When does a woman’s right to defend herself against her rapist end?

I ask these questions because each of the five actions she might take in self-defense is a contraceptive method as well. And you say that contraception is an intrinsical evil and therefore immoral in all circumstances. That doesn’t make any sense to me as a woman, after giving careful consideration to all the possible ways of defending myself if I were attacked.

Okay, I’ll try and answer these as best as I can, but as I’ve pointed out a few times I’m not really sure myself if I’m right or not. That said:

As a response to all five questions the simple answer is that stopping the rapist from actively doing something to you is not immoral; it is the rapist who is being (horrifically) immoral.

However, once the rapist’s act is finished, then what happens afterward is something the victim is doing (awkward wording, but whatever), not the rapist. The sperm is not the rapist. It is already in you. Sperm is not an attacker, the rapist is.

 

[mommamaree]

Okay, I’ll try and answer these as best as I can, but as I’ve pointed out a few times I’m not really sure myself if I’m right or not. That said:

As a response to all five questions the simple answer is that stopping the rapist from actively doing something to you is not immoral; it is the rapist who is being (horrifically) immoral.

However, once the rapist’s act is finished, then what happens afterward is something the victim is doing (awkward wording, but whatever), not the rapist. The sperm is not the rapist. It is already in you. Sperm is not an attacker, the rapist is.

Think again. The link I provided demonstrated that the rapist sperm is an unjust aggressor.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If you will both look in the back of your CCC, on mine, it’s page 751, listed under Ecclesiastical Writers, you will find about 45 citations from the Summa Theologiae (Summation of Theology) for various doctrinal explanations. I could just tell you it IS part of Church Doctrine, but please, don’t take just my word for it.

If you read my posts on threads (not that I expect you too, but this makes a point) you’ll notice that I consider myself an amateur Thomist. I agree with more or less everything Saint Thomas says. However, the fact that the Church bases a ton (most) of her moral doctrines on Aquinas’s teachings does not make the Summa itself official teaching.

The Summa, IMO, is basically always right. St. Thomas is a wonderfully clear, logical thinker. But the Summa is not an official compendium of doctrine.

 

[Corki]

I want to tell you all right now, and I am being sincere. I am NOT trying to be difficult here. I’m not challenging things for the sake of it. I’m not even sure I’m right.

I want to make this very clear.

And as much as some people want to get a definative “yes” or “no”, this is still not a matter of definitive Church teaching. The bishops’ documents do not even take a position that EC after rape is definately a moral choice. It’s a very nuanced area of moral theology and we are free to have a difference of opinion on it – at least for now.

 

[Debora123]

Abortion is never justified. Double effect does NOT involve killing the baby. This is pretty clear. Also, there are CLEARLY defined circumstances where it applies.

Oh, I’m not saying there isn’t, I’m just saying that the Church recognizes certain instances where this can happen.

"Spirit of the law" is a problem because when does it stop?

“Spirit of the law” doesn’t exist. What DOES exist is situations where it’s difficult to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong. But that doesn’t mean certain teachings don’t apply. Things that are always wrong remain so.

That’s not to say circumstances don’t change things. But there are ways to figure out HOW.

That’s why it’s important to have a well formed conscience.

 

[Debora123]

They didn’t source all of the bible so does that mean only the parts of the bible they sourced are official doctrine?

Yes, actually. If we took the entire bible at face value, we’d be sola scripture fundamentalists.

There is only a page an a half of Cannon Law sited, is the rest of Cannon Law non binding? Ecclesiastical Documents only have a page and a half too… what about those that were not sited?

The CCC is not the WHOLE of doctrine. It is a concise manual of distilled thought directed towards most of lay peoples questions. Is was never meant to be the be all end all resource.

Ok. I’m sorry but you’re not going to convince me to believe every word of that Summa thing. I feel much better sticking to the CCC and HV.

And for the record abortion is never permitted. The only thing close is a ectopic pregnancy and the only thing moral theologists agree on is you may remove the infected tube. That is not an abortion, that is a surgical procedure to correct a no long correctly working organ. The death of the child is an unintended, unwanted side effect.

The point is, an unborn baby dies. That’s precisely why we need to have/define “double effect” in order to do it.

 

[Corki]

The point is, an unborn baby dies. That’s precisely why we need to have/define “double effect” in order to do it.

The principal of double effect doesn’t apply to the situation of EC after rape. A core element of the principle of double effect is that the evil is **not intended **but merely tolerated as an unintended effect of a morally good act. With EC, the effect is intended.

 

[Debora123]

The principal of double effect doesn’t apply to the situation of EC after rape.

I know it doesn’t, and I never said it did.

I only brought it up to prove a point to another poster about certain extraordinary situations requiring certain exceptions.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

We didn’t “create” double effect as an exception. The Church can’t create morality, she can only tell us what’s ALREADY moral and ALREADY immoral. Double effect is just laying out the logic of why certain actions aren’t sinful in detail, to make it easier for us to know where it applies.

Double effect has nothing to do with any of this. I never denied, now will I ever deny, that each circumstance is unique and requires careful nuance, but you can’t just say that sometimes something intrinsically immoral is ever moral, no matter the circumstance. That’s not how it works.

When we say there’s a “gray” morality all that really means is that it’s difficult to distinguish between what action is moral and what action is immoral. That doesn’t mean the distinction isn’t there. “Exceptions” can’t be made.

 

[levinas12]

The Summa, IMO, is basically always right.

I am reluctant to intrude at this late date. But I have to agree with Marc Anthony.

The Thomist argument is based upon a philosophical understanding of natural ends.

Natural ends are to be distinguished from human purposes which may or may not coincide with natural ends.

In modern philosophy, natural ends were eclipsed and human purpose (technology) became the dominant focus.

But we may be slowly returning to a notion of natural ends. Particularly, phenomenology in the 20th century has revealed that the body has its own “intentionality”.

And even the hard sciences have something to say in this regard. For example, biochemistry is revealing more and more detail on how the body is oriented to the “other” especially in the area of sexual activity.

From the viewpoint of a philosophy of natural ends, the unitive and the procreative are “built into” the sex act (Marc Anthony’s felicitous phrase).

The notion of “natural ends” is not only invoked by the Summa.

Perhaps we need to investigate what Catholic moral theologians were saying before the last half of the 20th century (from 100 through 1950).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Ok. I’m sorry but you’re not going to convince me to believe every word of that Summa thing. I feel much better sticking to the CCC and HV.

Hm, two things:

1. Sticking to the Summa and sticking to the CC and HV are not mutually exclusive. In fact, since the Church derives almost all of it’s morality teachings from Aquinas’s logic as made out in the Summa, they’re almost definitely compatibile.
2. You are holding an odd attidude toward this. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I don’t agree with the Summa as some sort of Bible. I’ve just seen Thomistic philosophers like Dr. Edward Feser explain parts of it and I’ve directly read a good portion (it’s quite long), and I think his logic is impeccable. Having never read it or never having a Thomist explain it to you how will you know that what it says is false? His philosophy was the main philosophy of the western world for almost a 1000 years for a reason.