If contraception is intrinsically evil...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Debora123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marc_Anthony said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not everything always applies all the time for every and all situations. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Rape is one of those times, though I guess we can agree to disagree at this point.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what to tell you.

I reject the notion that it’s wrong for rape victims to use contraception. Since the Summa isn’t infaliable Church doctrine, I am perfectly allowed to reject this particular notion.
 
Debora123 said:
…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill? (given no fertilization has taken place)

From what I understand, when an act is intrinsically evil, it means that the act is ALWAYS wrong. No matter who what where when why.

If that’s the case, then why is it morally permissible to contracept against a rapist? (given no harm is being done to an already fertilized egg if one is present)
Click to expand...
Whenever the church has spoken of contraception as an intrinsic evil, it has always spoken of it in the context of the** conjugal act** which is intended do bring about the union of the spouses. Since rape falls outside this category, it is morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill given the fact that conception hasn’t yet occurred.
 
WesleyF said:
Whenever the church has spoken of contraception as an intrinsic evil, it has always spoken of it in the context of the** conjugal act** which is intended do bring about the union of the spouses. Since rape falls outside this category, it is morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill given the fact that conception hasn’t yet occurred.
Click to expand...
Yep, I’ve figured that out since starting this thread. 🙂

Thank you!
 
Debora123 said:
Yep, I’ve figured that out since starting this thread. 🙂

Thank you!
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn’t notice that the thread already has 440 posts! I thought it was a new thread. Anyway, good you’ve figured that part out!
 
Debora123 said:
I’m not sure what to tell you.

I reject the notion that it’s wrong for rape victims to use contraception. Since the Summa isn’t infaliable Church doctrine, I am perfectly allowed to reject this particular notion.
Click to expand...
What if you disagree, not just with St. Thomas, but with the long tradition of the Church’s teaching back to 500 AD and probably earlier?

We need to look at what other Catholic moral theologians over the centuries have said about contraception. I am sure that much of their analysis was couched in terms of “natural ends” that apply to any sex act.
 
Debora123 said:
Not the case.
Click to expand...
You might want to elaborate what you mean.

Have you surveyed the long tradition of the Church’s teaching on contraception? And found that your position is consistent?

The problem here is not just academic.

Some of the postings on the thread seem to blur the distinction between natural ends and human purposes.

But this distinction is a crucial one. The sex act, by its nature, independent of human consciousness, is “oriented” to the unitive and the procreative. That’s why masturbation, fornication and rape are wrong.

Without the Church’s insistence on “nature”, the cogency of her moral teaching vanishes.
 
levinas12 said:
You might want to elaborate what you mean.

Do you mean that you have surveyed the long tradition of the Church’s teaching on contraception? And found that your position is consistent?

Apart from the Summa, I haven’t noticed much historical material on this thread.

But some of the postings seemed to blur the distinction between natural ends and human purposes.

This distinction is a crucial one. The sex act, by its nature, is “oriented” to the unitive and the procreative. That’s why masturbation, fornication and rape are wrong.

Without the Church’s insistence on “nature”, the cogency of her moral teaching vanishes.
Click to expand...
I mean I am not in opposition with Church teaching by agreeing with USCCB that it is permissible for rape victims to use EC.
 
Debora123 said:
I mean I am not in opposition with Church teaching by agreeing with USCCB that it is permissible for rape victims to use EC.
Click to expand...
But you seem to be saying more than this. For example, if I have understood your position, you are arguing that the “unitive” and “procreative” are not built into the sex act by nature.*

This downplays the entire notion of natural ends (as distinct from human purposes).

I know this may sound tedious. My excuse, if it is an excuse, is that I’m a philosophy major. I simply want to understand the assumptions behind some of the arguments (including the USCCB’s arguments).

I have to turn in now.

Permit to say, however, that I have found the thread very thought provoking.
  • I know that some have argued that rape is not an act of sexual intercourse and therefore falls outside the natural ends built into the sex act. But I’m not sure this is really persuasive. There’s an automaticity to natural ends which operate independently of human subjectivity.
 
There is such fallacy in saying that even in rape one can use absolutely no contraception. Rape is abuse. It would be like telling a person that he/she couldn’t kill someone in self-defense. I don’t think anyone here would argue that murder is wrong and therefore it is a sin to kill someone should they leave you know choice.
 
levinas12 said:
But you seem to be saying more than this. For example, if I have understood your position, you are arguing that the “unitive” and “procreative” are not built into the sex act by nature.*

This downplays the entire notion of natural ends (as distinct from human purposes).

I know this may sound tedious. My excuse, if it is an excuse, is that I’m a philosophy major. I simply want to understand the assumptions behind some of the arguments (including the USCCB’s arguments).

I have to turn in now.

Permit to say, however, that I have found the thread very thought provoking.
  • I know that some have argued that rape is not an act of sexual intercourse and therefore falls outside the natural ends built into the sex act. But I’m not sure this is really persuasive. There’s an automaticity to natural ends which operate independently of human subjectivity.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with you.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is not Church teaching.
 
Debora123 said:
It’s still contraception though.

***Part ***of the reason why contraception here is permissible is because it is done in self defense of a rape.

But it’s still contraception. I’m not sure what the point is of trying to say it’s not contraception.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. Contraception is a sin that involves frustrating the marital act. Using medicines or techniques to repel an unjust aggressor are not contraception. Abortion is a separate matter.
 
fix said:
This is not correct. Contraception is a sin that involves frustrating the marital act. Using medicines or techniques to repel an unjust aggressor are not contraception. Abortion is a separate matter.
Click to expand...
This has already been talked about at length here. Contracepting against a rapist is still contraception. :rolleyes:
 
Debora123 said:
I’m not sure what to tell you.

I reject the notion that it’s wrong for rape victims to use contraception. Since the Summa isn’t infaliable Church doctrine, I am perfectly allowed to reject this particular notion.
Click to expand...
You realize that the USCCB is not infallible either right.The CCC it self is only infallible in so much is it reflects the clear and constant tradition of the last 2000 years.

That is the trick with infallibility, for a statement to be infallible it has to reflect the traditional teaching of the church, a statement may be explained in more detail abut the principle doesn’t ever change. So no the Summa is not on its own infallible, but the statements in it that have been the traditional teachings of the Church are.
 
LJN21 said:
You realize that the USCCB is not infallible either right.The CCC it self is only infallible in so much is it reflects the clear and constant tradition of the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...
Sure! But I am allowed to believe or disbelieve certain things in the Summa and in USCCB.
 
Debora123 said:
This has already been talked about at length here. Contracepting against a rapist is still contraception. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know, the likely hood of the USCCB being on error on this stance is actually more likely than the Summa being logically wrong. I’m not saying they are, but the whole situation is problematic form the outset.
 
LJN21 said:
You know, the likely hood of the USCCB being on error on this stance is actually more likely than the Summa being logically wrong. I’m not saying they are, but the whole situation is problematic form the outset.
Click to expand...
Disagreed completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top