If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Marc_Anthony]

How was it obvious and unnecessary to leave out the pertinent fact that these texts were about married sex? I think you point was lost because you left out the pertinent facts.

What’s pertinent here is that he said “Never” and yet was specifically speaking about marriage. If he said “between spouses”, or “except outside of marriage”, that would be a different story. But he said “Never”.

The Church definition of contraception as given by Debora: The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.

So contraception is defined as taking place within marriage, not out of it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What confuses me here is that this isn’t even a challenge to your point as a whole. I have reservations about that, but I’m not sure if I totally disagree. This is just a simple factual statement that contraception is intrinsically evil. Not only did St. Thomas prove it, it has also been stated pretty clearly by the Church.

 

[Rence]

Very well, context:

Pope John Paul II was talking about married sex. This whole thing was meant for spouses. But he never said that contraception was always wrong within marriage. He said it could NEVER be justified, and was very and vehemently clear about that. He did not qualify “within marriage”, and considering that he said NEVER, this is significant, because the “never” would be wrong. The obvious conclusions here are 1) You can’t contracept after rape or, 2) What occurs to prevent conception after rape isn’t contraception.

I’ll let you chase your tail in circles for a while chewing on the above, and though I wonder what text you got the above claims from, I’m not curious enough to ask you to dig it up. But I will point out that “contraception” is “deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation”. Therefore, NFP is a form of contraception. What it is not, is artificial. It doesn’t interfere with the untive property or even the procreative property.Given this, obviously, contraception is allowed in marriage as long as it’s NFP being employed and not an artificial means that interferes with the unitive and procreative properties that are required.

 

[Debora123]

Very well, context:

Pope John Paul II was talking about married sex. This whole thing was meant for spouses. But he never said that contraception was always wrong within marriage. He said it could NEVER be justified, and was very and vehemently clear about that. He did not qualify “within marriage”, and considering that he said NEVER, this is significant, because the “never” would be wrong. The obvious conclusions here are 1) You can’t contracept after rape or, 2) What occurs to prevent conception after rape isn’t contraception.

Well if he was addressing married couples and speaking about marriage and discussing contraceptive use within marriage, then it would logically follow that he was referring to “never” in the context of a marriage.

Just sayin.

 

[Rence]

What’s pertinent here is that he said “Never” and yet was specifically speaking about marriage. If he said “between spouses”, or “except outside of marriage”, that would be a different story. But he said “Never”.

First of all, he wouldn’t say ‘except outside of marriage’ because unmarried people don’t engage in the martial embrace and do not participate in the conjugal act, and they’re not allowed to have sex in the first place. And second of all, he did say between spouses, several times, by specifically stating such terms as ‘conjugal act’.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll let you chase your tail in circles for a while chewing on the above, and though I wonder what text you got the above claims from, I’m not curious enough to ask you to dig it up. But I will point out that “contraception” is “deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation”. Therefore, NFP is a form of contraception. What it is not, is artificial. It doesn’t interfere with the untive property or even the procreative property.Given this, obviously, contraception is allowed in marriage as long as it’s NFP being employed and not an artificial means that interferes with the unitive and procreative properties that are required.

Exactly…we’re discussing how the Church defines things here, not how the dictionary defines them. The Church has a very specific definition of contraception, and it is possible that the prevention of conception after rape does not fall under it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

First of all, he wouldn’t say ‘except outside of marriage’ because unmarried people don’t engage in the martial embrace and do not participate in the conjugal act, and they’re not allowed to have sex in the first place.

Exactly. What happens outside of marriage is not something he defined as contraception.

 

[levinas12]

What’s pertinent here is that he said “Never” and yet was specifically speaking about marriage. If he said “between spouses”, or “except outside of marriage”, that would be a different story. But he said “Never”.

The Church definition of contraception as given by Debora: The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.

So contraception is defined as taking place within marriage, not out of it.

 

[Rence]

Exactly. What happens outside of marriage is not something he defined as contraception.

Exactly: married couples are not allowed by the Church to use contraception because it interferes with the unitive and procreative properties that they require. Rape situations don’t have a unitive property to protect.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Exactly: married couples are not allowed by the Church to use contraception because it interferes with the unitive and procreative properties that they require. Rape situations don’t have a unitive property to protect.

So, do you agree then that what happens outside of marriage falls under a different definition then what the Church has defined as contraception? Because that’s all I mean.

 

[fix]

No.

What you describe above is referencing double effect.

Rape victims contraception against their rapist does not fall under double effect.

This too has already been discussed in this thread.

I used that example to show that words matter.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I used that example to show that words matter.

This is the point. Words matter. They have a specific usage. The Church cannot say “Contraception is wrong” and “Contraception is allowed after rape”. If prevention of conception is allowed after rape a different word with a different definition must be used to describe it.

 

[Debora123]

So, do you agree then that what happens outside of marriage falls under a different definition then what the Church has defined as contraception? Because that’s all I mean.

Contraception simply means to deliberately avoid conception. Whether that happens in the conjugal act, in fornication, in prostitution, or in rape, it is still contraception.

The thing in question here, is whether or not all sex acts are morally called to be unitive and procreative, or if only marital sex acts are called to such.

I believe the Church teaches that only marital sex is called to be unitive and procreative. Other acts, such as fornication, prostitution, and rape, are disordered and sinful… and the only thing they are “morally called for” is to stop taking place altogether.

Thus, using plan b in a case of rape would not be sinful if a new life isn’t being destroyed.

 

[LJN21]

You can’t dismiss the Bishops just because you don’t understand the teachings that form the foundations of what they’re saying either.

I not dismissing the bishops and I understand the foundations. I’ve done quite a bit of reading on all sides of the issue.
The fact are this:

Is it is established that a woman may act in self defense against and unjust aggressor.

The use of Plan B is hotly debated among theologians because of its abortafciant properties.
Group A takes the natural law Tomistic side. (deductive logic) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive
Group B takes the “well morality out side of marriage doesn’t really matter because you shouldn’t be doing it anyway approach”. (inductive logic)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_logic

Group B is trying to reason form a premise of “what is sex”.
Group A is trying to reason form a premise of “what do we already know about the morality of sex via natural law”

Remember the natural law foundations has been part of Church doctrine and has been basically forever. The concept began with Plato and has been refined over the last 2500 years, with the doctors of the Church writing extensively on it. It is the base all of Catholic moral code is written on.

Logically speaking since this is a theological matter the inductive approach is flawed from the outset because you can not get the full picture of the question asked with out going back to the foundation of natural law.

 

[Debora123]

This is the point. Words matter. They have a specific usage. The Church cannot say “Contraception is wrong” and “Contraception is allowed after rape”. If prevention of conception is allowed after rape a different word with a different definition must be used to describe it.

No different word is needed to describe it. And no different word was used to describe it:

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]

Contraception simply means to deliberately avoid conception.

In dictionary language, yeah. But the Church tries to be more nuanced than that. The Church has claimed that contraception is always wrong, and yet has only said referenced it in regards to marriage. This is extremely significant.

I think the reason we’ve been talking past each other at this point is we’re using words differently. By your definition of contraception, I agree with you to the point that your position makes sense. But I don’t think that’s how the Church defines it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No different word is needed to describe it. And no different word was used to describe it:

I question the website for the same reason I question the Bishops. I suspect they’re not making a distinction between Church-defined contraception and common usage contraception.

 

[LJN21]

The Church has claimed that contraception is always wrong, and yet has only said referenced it in regards to marriage. This is extremely significant.

That’s not really true. Only more modern documents only reference in terms of marriage.

And we know that just because one work fails to mention something doesn’t make the other works wrong.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I not dismissing the bishops and I understand the foundations. I’ve done quite a bit of reading on all sides of the issue.
The fact are this:

Is it is established that a woman may act in self defense against and unjust aggressor.

The use of Plan B is hotly debated among theologians because of its abortafciant properties.
Group A takes the natural law Tomistic side. (deductive logic) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive
Group B takes the “well morality out side of marriage doesn’t really matter because you shouldn’t be doing it anyway approach”. (inductive logic)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_logic

Group B is trying to reason form a premise of “what is sex”.
Group A is trying to reason form a premise of “what do we already know about the morality of sex via natural law”

Remember the natural law foundations has been part of Church doctrine and has been basically forever. The concept began with Plato and has been refined over the last 2500 years, with the doctors of the Church writing extensively on it. It is the base all of Catholic moral code is written on.

Logically speaking since this is a theological matter the inductive approach is flawed from the outset because you can not get the full picture of the question asked with out going back to the foundation of natural law.

Well said.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s not really true. Only more modern documents only reference in terms of marriage.

And we know that just because one work fails to mention something doesn’t make the other works wrong.

Blessed Pope JPII did use the term NEVER justified.

However, you seem learned on the subject (not sarcastic, I’m being sincere here). What DID the Church say on contraception outside of marriage in older documents?