If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[fix]

This has already been talked about at length here. Contracepting against a rapist is still contraception.

I hope you are joking? Rape is not a willing coming together of two people. It is an act of an unjust aggressor. It is not possible to have the sin of contraception in such a case.

 

[fix]

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.

There may be some confusion here. Contraception is a sin. Medication is not a sin. That medical terms use the word contraception does not automatically equal moral theology using the term contraception.

 

[Debora123]

I hope you are joking? Rape is not a willing coming togeter of two people. It is an act of an unjust aggressor.

I’m not joking at all… read the thread several pages back and you’ll see that some of our posters here did a great job of explaining that contracepting against rape is still contraception (though that is obvious).

It is not possible to have the sin of contraception in such a case.

Contraception in this case wouldn’t be a sin, but it is still contraception.

 

[Debora123]

There may be some confusion here. Contraception is a sin. Medication is not a sin. That medical terms use the word contraception does not automatically equal moral theology using the term contraception.

This is making no sense. Rape victims don’t take contraception as medication. They take contraception to contracept a possible pregnancy from taking place. Again, this has been discussed and cleared up at length here already. Go back several pages and read the thread.

 

[fix]

I’m not joking at all… read the thread several pages back and you’ll see that some of our posters here did a great job of explaining that contracepting against rape is still contraception (though that is obvious).

If they argue that but they are incorrect. Contraception is intrinsically evil. No exceptions.

Medication used to repel an unjust aggressor is not contraception.

Contraception in this case wouldn’t be a sin, but it is still contraception.

Sorry, but that would be a contradiction.

 

[fix]

This is making no sense. Rape victims don’t take contraception as medication. They take contraception to contracept a possible pregnancy from taking place. Again, this has been discussed and cleared up at length here already. Go back several pages and read the thread.

No, victims take medication, and other techniques, to repel an unjust aggressor. That is not the sin of contraception. The medical jargon uses that term as a discriptor of medication at times, but it is not morally contraception. The difference matters and is profound.

 

[fix]

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.

The sperm is an unjust aggressor. There is no right for the sperm to be there.

 

[Debora123]

Sorry, fix.

Never once do any sources say that contracepting against rape is permissible because it isn’t contraception. The reasons given for why it is permissible are these:

"The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’ s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae, which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).) "

I highlighted them for your convenience. Notice of the 3 reasons given, none of them include “it is permissible because it is not contraception.”

That’s all I’m going to say on this issue. I am not going to revisit this absurd notion that contracepting against a rapist is not actually contraception. This has already been discussed and put to rest pages ago. In my opinion, such notion is not even worthy of any more discussion than it’s already been given.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[fix]

For more info please see this:

it is an act of the aggressor only, and the victim has the right to repel the aggression before the act of rape begins, or during the rape, and also the right to expel or block the continuation of the act in the form of the aggressor’s sperm still invading her body.

And here:

Since the rapist has no right to deposit his ejaculate into his victim’s body, and it is being done contrary to her willing it, she has no obligation either to receive or retain his semen.

 

[fix]

Sorry, fix.

Never once do any sources say that contracepting against rape is permissible because it isn’t contraception. The reasons given for why it is permissible are these:

I highlighted them for your convenience. Notice of the 3 reasons given, none of them include “it is permissible because it is not contraception.”

That’s all I’m going to say on this issue. I am not going to revisit this absurd notion that contracepting against a rapist is not actually contraception. This has already been discussed and put to rest pages ago. In my opinion, such notion is not even worthy of any more discussion than it’s already been given.

We can agree to disagree.

First, you have to define what the** sin** of contraception is.

You seem to be using a medical definition.

You have not provided evidence it is the sin contraception at all.

 

[LJN21]

I wonder then, why our apologists would reference the USCCB and not say a word about what the Summa says in regards to this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=25127

That is really irreverent nor does it change the fact they could be wrong. Nor does it invalidate going to the Summa or any other Church work to see if it meshes with the constant traditional Church teaching. In fact if I were attempting to justify something iffy the last place I’d go is the Summa

Because rape is a forcible sexual assault on a woman, moral theologians have argued that it is permissible for a woman to defend herself against a potential conception when she has been raped. These theologians contend that she may licitly receive those treatments that would prevent conception from occurring, but that no treatment that would remove or destroy the fertilized egg or would prevent implantation of a fertilized egg would be morally licit. In short, the assertion is that a woman who has suffered rape may seek to prevent conception, but she cannot abort an already-conceived child.

The way this is even phrased say there is some debate about the idea. However, unless Rome comes out and puts a stamp on it one way or another we are fee to follow the USCCB. That doesn’t mean they are infallible though.
Nor is it unheard of for a certain group of bishops or most of the bishops to be wrong on a subject.
When Humanae Vitae was written all most all of the bishops and the popes advisers all told him the Church was wrong on that whole contraception thing and they really needed to just allow it. Most of the Church’s were already telling people its okay to do and the Pope would so revise Church teaching. What did he do? He affirmed that its Intrinsically evil. Humanae Vitae is not the only work that teaches this though.

Now if you want the historical part that makes up the traditional teaching (making it infallible) just follow back the history. Before Humanae Vitae, you have Casti Connubii in 1930. All of the ECF talk about it, I’ve linked those already. In 80 AD there is a document called the Didache which talks about not using “potions” which are historically taught to mean contraceptives that prevent pregnancy. On top of that you have biblical references also talking about not using sorcery or potions which again is traditionally taught to mean contraceptives. While some of these documents might be specifically talking about marriage (that is the only place your supposed to be having sex anyway) many more are talking about all sex acts. So it really can’t be any clearer the Church has taught for 2000 years contraception is intrinsically evil.

So all say it again, either some how this isn’t morally contraception or the bishops are in error somehow.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The sperm is an unjust aggressor. There is no right for the sperm to be there.

No, but then it’s sperm, not any parasite. If united with an egg it will create life. Getting rid of the sperm would be contraception-which is intrinsically wrong.

You might find a way to somehow twist it so that contraception after rape isn’t contraception, but if it is contraception it is morally wrong, period.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Debora, if you’re saying it IS contraception, you ARE going directly against Church teaching on this.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding it so it really isn’t contraception in the sense traditionally understood. I don’t know. But if you’re saying that you CAN contracept after rape that’s just against Church teaching.

 

[Debora123]

Debora, if you’re saying it IS contraception, you ARE going directly against Church teaching on this.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding it so it really isn’t contraception in the sense traditionally understood. I don’t know. But if you’re saying that you CAN contracept after rape that’s just against Church teaching.

I already know you think it’s against Church teaching for rape victims to contracept using plan b. I completely disagree with you on that, and fully take the position stated in the USCCB.

 

[levinas12]

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.

No, the Church’s teaching on contraception does not just apply to the conjugal union.

The reason why is that it is based on the natural law. To understand the natural law, you must first understand what is meant by nature.

Nature refers to a realm of beings which we ourselves don’t “make”. A flower is a natural being; a car is not.

This realm has its own teleology and is independent of human will. It is governed by natural ends which apply to every instance of a “natural” activity.

Thus, the natural ends of sexual activity, the unitive and the procreative, are “present” in every act of sexual intercourse, not just those in marriage.

This is what is being assumed, not just in the Summa, but in many other works of moral theology over the centuries.

This is particularly true of the Theology of the Body where Blessed John Paul II talks about the “language” of the body or the “nuptial” meaning of the body. Emphasis is on “body”. As a good phenomenologist, he knows that the body has its own intentionality which human subjectivity should “coincide with”. TOB is not something radically new but is a recapitulation of the traditional teaching about “natural ends”.

But there can be a “gap” between natural ends and human intentions in the sex act. A sex act can be a “lie”, a “falsehood”, as TOB points out repeatedly. This does not mean that the natural ends are not “present”; no, they remain operative. It’s really a case of the body going in one direction and the human person going in an opposite direction.

 

[LJN21]

I already know you think it’s against Church teaching for rape victims to contracept using plan b. I completely disagree with you on that, and fully take the position stated in the USCCB.

The USCCB isn’t a document. Its just the collective of the US Bishops (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Your well with in your right to follow their stance and I’m not auguring that. I’m just pointing out its not an official document or a catechism. Its just the opinions of ONLY the US Bishops, which only carry authority for us in the USA. They also only have infallibility in so much as their teachings follow the tradition of the Church. If Rome contradicts something they say, it is Rome we follow, not the USCCB.

 

[fix]

No, but then it’s sperm, not any parasite.

It is an aggressor just like the man is. If the woman may repel him she may repel his sperm. That is not contraception.

If united with an egg it will create life.

Yes, once a new life is formed that changes the moral issue.

Getting rid of the sperm would be contraception-which is intrinsically wrong.

No, that is not the sin of contraception unless you make rape a form of intercourse which it is not.

You might find a way to somehow twist it so that contraception after rape isn’t contraception, but if it is contraception it is morally wrong, period.

The sin of contraception is always wrong, no exceptions. Taking medicine to repel an unjust aggressor is not contraception.

There is a significant difference in moral species here. Although the physical actions may be the same the moral actions are vastly different.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I already know you think it’s against Church teaching for rape victims to contracept using plan b. I completely disagree with you on that, and fully take the position stated in the USCCB.

But does the USCCB ever actually use the term contraception?

I know you disagree with my view. But for the sake of argument, and because it’s quite possible I’m wrong, I’m willing to say that using artificial contraceptives after rape is not wrong. But does the USCCB actually define this as contraception? Or do they believe that it is not contraception as technically defined by the Church?

Because “contraception is INTRINSICALLY wrong” isn’t only my opinion. It is the unbroken teaching of the Church for around 2000 years.

 

[Debora123]

The USCCB isn’t a document. Its just the collective of the US Bishops (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Your well with in your right to follow their stance and I’m not auguring that. I’m just pointing out its not an official document or a catechism. Its just the opinions of ONLY the US Bishops, which only carry authority for us in the USA. They also only have infallibility in so much as their teachings follow the tradition of the Church. If Rome contradicts something they say, it is Rome we follow, not the USCCB.

Good!!

 

[LJN21]

No, that is not the sin of contraception unless you make rape a form of intercourse which it is not.

Fix, I’m just hijacking you quote to make to go back to a point against something someone else said several pages ago.

Fornicators are still culpable for contraceptive acts because what they are doing IS intercourse.