If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Debora123]

Both “intercourse” and “coitus” derive from Latin. If language has 1 tcoituserm then it will have the other.

Chuch documents are nornally in Latin.

I just think this particular stance (that contraception is permissible in cases of rape) should go beyond words in order for it to really hold any water on a more universal level.

To say something like “it’s permissible because it’s coitus but it’s not intercourse” is not doing the argument any justice… especially since the 2 words are seen as synonyms world wide.

 

[LJN21]

disagreed

You can disagree all you want. That doesn’t make you right. The truth does not need to be believed in order for it to be true.

Unless the Church comes out and expressly says “Hey guys Aquinas is wrong on this front” he IS right and we as Catholics are supposed to treat is as such.

 

[LJN21]

ITo say something like “it’s permissible because it’s coitus but it’s not intercourse” is not doing the argument any justice.

Why not? Many other moral issues come down to slight differences in terms. This is expressly whey the definition of the words we use matters so much. It is just semantics, and its vitally important.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I just think this particular stance (that contraception is permissible in cases of rape) should go beyond words in order for it to really hold any water on a more universal level.

To say something like “it’s permissible because it’s coitus but it’s not intercourse” is not doing the argument any justice.

I did not say that.

Rape is a form of coitus, it isn’t a form of intercourse, and I was specifically answering Marc Anthony’s confusion that intercourse happens in rape.

 

[Debora123]

You can disagree all you want. That doesn’t make you right. The truth does not need to be believed in order for it to be true.

Unless the Church comes out and expressly says “Hey guys Aquinas is wrong on this front” he IS right and we as Catholics are supposed to treat is as such.

Oh good! In that case I will continue to do so. With that, and with your whole post above too.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I just think this particular stance (that contraception is permissible in cases of rape) should go beyond words in order for it to really hold any water on a more universal level.

To say something like “it’s permissible because it’s coitus but it’s not intercourse” is not doing the argument any justice… especially since the 2 words are seen as synonyms world wide.

The problem is that in the Church the exact wording she uses for doctrines is extremely important; that’s the reason she can theoretically say “contraception is intrinsically evil” and “a method to prevent sperm from reaching the egg after rape is okay”. If you take away the subtle nuances the Church uses regarding terminology the results would be catastrophic; contradictory teachings would appear all over the place (people who don’t understand the terminology who aren’t Catholic very often believe this to be the case).

The ONLY way we can say that some form of birth control is allowed for women after rape is if we define it as something other than contraception. Otherwise we are going directly against Church teaching which defines contraception as inherently evil.

 

[fix]

I just think this particular stance (that contraception is permissible in cases of rape) should go beyond words in order for it to really hold any water on a more universal level.

To say something like “it’s permissible because it’s coitus but it’s not intercourse” is not doing the argument any justice… especially since the 2 words are seen as synonyms world wide.

It is not a word game. Words convey ideas. Rape is most definitely not consentual intercourse. There may be some physical aspects that look similar but the moral differences are tremendous and require proper terminology to express it.

 

[LJN21]

Oh good! In that case I will continue to do so. With that, and with your whole post above too.

Nice to know how little you think of the Angelic Doctor of the Church you claim to believe in.

 

[Debora123]

I did not say that.

Rape is a form of coitus, it isn’t a form of intercourse, and I was specifically answering Marc Anthony’s confusion that intercourse happens in rape.

Well, I just don’t think that’s a very good argument… and definitely isn’t the argument used in any of our sources. Just my opinion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Oh good! In that case I will continue to do so. With that, and with your whole post above too.

Debora, you can keep saying that but the fact that you’ve stopped responding to what we’re saying doesn’t make your disagreements any more valid.

Since you seem to believe you have an understanding of Aquinas’s logic, then what parts of it do you find faulty?

And if you don’t have an understanding of Aquinas’s logic it is impossible for you to say it is wrong.

 

[Debora123]

The problem is that in the Church the exact wording she uses for doctrines is extremely important; that’s the reason she can theoretically say “contraception is intrinsically evil” and “a method to prevent sperm from reaching the egg after rape is okay”. If you take away the subtle nuances the Church uses regarding terminology the results would be catastrophic; contradictory teachings would appear all over the place (people who don’t understand the terminology who aren’t Catholic very often believe this to be the case).

The ONLY way we can say that some form of birth control is allowed for women after rape is if we define it as something other than contraception. Otherwise we are going directly against Church teaching which defines contraception as inherently evil.

The only people who have done that are the handful of members on this thread. All the theologians who touched on this issue, including our Bishops, made no such argument.

But then again, I said I wasn’t going to get into that again. Quite frankly, it’s not worth getting into it. I just think it’s an absurd notion.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well, I just don’t think that’s a very good argument… and definitely isn’t the argument used in any of our sources. Just my opinion.

It has been used. I posted it in one of my first posts:

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 12-27-2002: The contraception-abortion oriented attitude of large segments of our contemporary culture presents special problems for the faithful Catholic physician and the authentic Catholic hospital, not the least of which concerns the appropriate treatment of the victim of rape who is admitted to the emergency room. The problem, of course, has nothing to do with the need for the utmost gentleness and compassionate care to be extended to the victims of rape. Nor is there any problem with the duty of carefully collecting and preserving accurate evidence that may be needed later in court. Nor is there any problem, from a moral viewpoint, with efforts to prevent conception in these tragic circumstances, provided such attempts to prevent conception do not endanger or destroy an embryo which might already be present. In regard to preventing conception in the circumstances of rape, the teaching of the Church regarding the evil of contraception in relation to sexual intercourse does not apply to rape simply because rape is not INTERcourse - 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. BUT, in the event that conception has occurred, or even MAY have occurred, the rape victim has no right to take measures which would destroy or endanger the newly conceived child. Obviously the new embryo is not an unjust aggressor but rather, like the woman, an innocent victim of a criminal act. To destroy this new life would simply be an abortion

 

[Debora123]

Debora, you can keep saying that but the fact that you’ve stopped responding to what we’re saying doesn’t make your disagreements any more valid.

Since you seem to believe you have an understanding of Aquinas’s logic, then what parts of it do you find faulty?

And if you don’t have an understanding of Aquinas’s logic it is impossible for you to say it is wrong.

I’ve stopped responding because we’re going in circles. And some of the notions being brought up are so far out there that I don’t even want to dignify them with a real response.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The only people who have done that are the handful of members on this thread. All the theologians who touched on this issue, including our Bishops, made no such argument.

But then again, I said I wasn’t going to get into that again. Quite frankly, it’s not worth getting into it. I just think it’s an absurd notion.

Okay, but you realize that your position is against Church teaching in this case?

I actually don’t think this would be absurd at all. I think it’s the only way to reconcile the issue.

 

[fix]

Look at direct sterilization and indirect sterilization. Both procedures may be performed in the exact same way. The outcome is the same. One is licit and one is illicit.

Direct sterilization is intrinsically evil, no exceptions. Indirect sterilization may be licit. We use different terms to express different moral dimensions even though the both render one sterile in the same way.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ve stopped responding because we’re going in circles. And some of the notions being brought up are so far out there that I don’t even want to dignify them with a real response.

Then break out of it. What parts of Aquinas’s logic, and I mean his actual arguments, not his conclusions, do you think are mistaken?

 

[mommamaree]

Reposting this link. Notice how this discussion of instructions for treatment of rape victims in Catholic hospitals explicitly refers to the action of the medication as preventing conception (defending herself against a conception) and later refers to the medication as a contraceptive. The entire article is discussing why, even though contraceptive medicine (medical terminology) is being used in a medically contraceptive fashion, the woman who is taking the medication and her health care providers are not guilty of the sin of contraception. The specific medication mentioned in the long form of the article inhibits ovulation. It is being used to protect her egg from the unjust aggressor, the sperm. Recall that sperm are not passive cells. They are designed to hunt down the egg and fertilize it. The rapist has no right to deposit his sperm in the womb of his rape victim, so spermicide and ovulation-inhibiting medication are acceptable to protect the body of the victim from a continuing assault. They might be using medical contraceptive technology but they are not using it in a contraceptive fashion as described by the Church to be an intrinsic evil.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

"Finally, health care providers must provide treatment to prevent the possible contraction of venereal disease and pregnancy. The Directives state, “A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”(no. 36)

…

“Therefore, before administering contraceptives to a rape victim, health care providers must ascertain first her medical history (including menstrual history, recent sexual activity, and contraceptive usage). A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This reminds me of the NFP argument. Yes, NFP by dictionary terms is a form of contraception, but the Church makes nuances. We must do the same here.

 

[Holly3278]

I always thought that the use of any contraception whatsoever would always be evil whenever it is used for preventing a pregnancy and therefore the use of it to prevent a pregnancy from a rape would also be evil. But then again, I trust in the Bishop’s wisdom since they are far more wise than I and I may very well be wrong on this.

 

[Debora123]

It has been used. I posted it in one of my first posts:

So it has been used by a Father Torracco. My apologies.

Honestly, I just don’t see how this argument would work on a more universal level… if translated to another language. For example, in Portuguese (my native language) we don’t have a word for “INTERcourse” that means sex. Intercourse translated to portuguese means “interconnected” and has nothing to do with sex. So there isn’t that distinction between intercourse and coitus.

An argument such as the one used above seems like just a play in words and wouldn’t work in some other languages.

I’m a fan of this:

"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).) "

…And think it does a much better and more thorough job of explaining things.