If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[mommamaree]

Marc Anthony,

You DO realize, don’t you, that contraception is both a medical term and a term used by the Church?
The Church may very well define the “sin of contraception” as a subset of all the possible uses of medical contraceptive technology.
That particular subset would be sinful, with very well-known exceptions.

To everyone,

Fornication is forbidden. Adultery is forbidden. Rape is forbidden. The only appropriate context for sexual contact to occur is between husband and wife in a lawful (valid) marriage.
Contracepting marital relations is wrong.
Using medicinal contraceptives to protect a rape victim’s body from an assault that continues even after her rapist leaves her is merciful, not sinful. Spermicides have been universally agreed to be licit protocol for post-rape treatment. The MAP (EC) does have some reason for concern, because one must have a reasonable level of certainty that neither fertilization nor ovulation has taken place so that the medication (being used in a medically contraceptive fashion) does not harm a child that has already been conceived. The MAP (Plan B, EC) is a high dose of oral contraceptives, used to prevent ovulation. It is being used to protect the victim’s egg from the rapist’s sperm.
Even though contraceptive technology is being used, it is specifically being used to protect the woman. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that it is self-defense. This is true as long as we are aware that it is self-defense by medical contraceptive technology. But this use of medical contraceptive technology does not fall under the definition of contraception as defined by the Church. There are those three reasons that Debora and I keep linking to and pasting for easy reading, that explain why this use of medical contraceptive technology as medical contraceptive technology (instead of as other therapeutic means) is not the sin of contraception and does not contradict Church teaching.
The theologians and medical professionals who have the problem with the MAP are rightly concerned that a couple of other quick tests should be performed to increase the certainty that the woman has not ovulated. I agree that their concern is valid. Adequate testing should be done. Ultrasounds take about five minutes. LH tests and pregnancy tests take about 2 minutes each, and could be done concurrently. The entire array of testing suggested to increase certainty that no abortifacient qualities come into play is less than ten minutes.
But it all still boils down to the fact that medical professionals and the Catholic Church have different definitions for the term contraception. Just as medical professionals unfortunately use “abortion” even for miscarriages, there are problems with the difference between medical terminology and the language that general society finds acceptable, too. That doesn’t mean the medical profession is going to change anytime soon in order to suit the preference of grieving mothers who have lost a baby through no fault of their own or leaders in the Catholic Church whose understanding of a term differs from the medical terminology.
Ugh, I am tired. Some of the assertions I have read in this thread still disturb me. Just for the record, those of us who agree with the directives for post-rape treatment are not in disagreement with the Church. And fyi, it is against forum rules for anyone to question the faith of someone else or to tell them that they are in mortal sin or heresy simply on the basis of your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Debora123]

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.

The Church has given no different definition of the word “contraception” than the dictionary term.

The Church’s definition of contraception is still the same… deliberately and directly frustrating procreation.

 

[levinas12]

We need to understand why Blessed John Paul II says that contraception is wrong for married people.

Sexual intercourse is a “natural” activity with “natural ends”. Contraception is a deliberate flouting of natural ends.

This argument applies to any act of sexual intercourse whether in marriage or outside marriage.

Just because the Pope is speaking on particular occasions to married people about contraception, this doesn’t mean that marital status is an essential factor in determining the morality of contraception.

If that were the case, then the whole line of reasoning based on natural ends would be irrelevant. And you would be approaching a gnostic position very foreign to the Church’s understanding of sex.

I’m willing to consider arguments that support the use of EC in the case of rape (if there is no evidence of ovulation).*

But these arguments will have to be consistent with the Church’s teaching on natural ends.

It would really be helpful if there were guidance from the Vatican about this issue.

*does anyone know what specific tests are used to determine whether there’s been ovulation or ovulation is imminent?

 

[LJN21]

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?

I answer that As stated above (153, 3), the sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circumstances are not observed. And since a circumstance, as such, does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object which is also its matter, it follows that the species of lust must be assigned with respect to its matter or object.
Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways. First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the “vice against nature,” which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is “simple fornication,” which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is “incest,” which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is “adultery,” if under the authority of her father, it is “seduction,” in the absence of violence, and “rape” if violence be employed.
These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of the man, because in the venereal act the woman is passive and is by way of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated above (Objection 1) that the aforesaid species are assigned with regard to a difference of matter.

Have a headache yet? I honestly can’t read much of the Summa, it makes my head hurt. You almost have to have a philosophy degree to just to get through the terms.

 

[LJN21]

*does anyone know what specific tests are used to determine whether there’s been ovulation or ovulation is imminent?

This talk about it some. You can google it and find a lot more. lifesitenews.com/news/plan-b-rape-and-abortion-err-on-the-side-of-life

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Debora, this was the definition of contraception you gave:

…the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful.

It’s specifically defined within the marital act.

I would like to apologize for saying that you disagree with Church teaching. When I get into debates like this I have a very unfortunate flaw that I must correct. As the debate gets more and more intense I push harder to make my point to the point where I start making comments that are not at all appropriate.

Whether I intend them to be insulting or not (this was something I meant to be subconsciously insulting to make a point) the comment was incredibly rude. I will try to be much more polite from here on out.

I don’t think you are going against any Church teching. I DO think you’re using terms incorrectly, but this is a matter of debate, not insult.

I was extremely rude and out of line and I apologize. I reiterate, Ipromise I will attempt to be much more polite from here on out.

 

[mommamaree]

Also, there is the fact that any sin has an objective quality and a subjective quality.

Example:

Fornication is an objective mortal sin.
A Catholic woman married outside the church to her husband is not in a valid marriage. Therefore, they are cohabiting and fornicating.

A Catholic woman, who never knew she was baptized Catholic as an infant, who later seeks to enter the Catholic Church, but was married outside the Church to her husband is still objectively not in a valid marriage. A convalidation is necessary to make their marriage valid before God. However, neither she nor her husband would be subjectively guilty of the sins of cohabitation or fornication, even after she became aware of the need for convalidation.

Here the Church teaches that one thing is always wrong, fornication. Objectively, it is a mortal sin. However, subjectively, there may be scenarios where, without contradicting Church teaching, a couple may not only NOT be guilty of mortal sin, but not even venial sin.

Perhaps this is the kind of pastoral decision-making that the US bishops involved in developing the directives we have been discussing used. We cannot discern the sinfulness of another person’s actions, but priests and bishops are trained to do just that, and to suggest moral ways of restoring justice, too. All without ever contradicting the Church’s teachings on anything.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m willing to consider arguments that support the use of EC in the case of rape (if there is no evidence of ovulation).*
*does anyone know what specific tests are used to determine whether there’s been ovulation or ovulation is imminent?

levinas,

see my post just above yours for the answer to your question.

 

[Debora123]

Marc Anthony,

You DO realize, don’t you, that contraception is both a medical term and a term used by the Church?
The Church may very well define the “sin of contraception” as a subset of all the possible uses of medical contraceptive technology.
That particular subset would be sinful, with very well-known exceptions.

To everyone,

Fornication is forbidden. Adultery is forbidden. Rape is forbidden. The only appropriate context for sexual contact to occur is between husband and wife in a lawful (valid) marriage.
Contracepting marital relations is wrong.
Using medicinal contraceptives to protect a rape victim’s body from an assault that continues even after her rapist leaves her is merciful, not sinful. Spermicides have been universally agreed to be licit protocol for post-rape treatment. The MAP (EC) does have some reason for concern, because one must have a reasonable level of certainty that neither fertilization nor ovulation has taken place so that the medication (being used in a medically contraceptive fashion) does not harm a child that has already been conceived. The MAP (Plan B, EC) is a high dose of oral contraceptives, used to prevent ovulation. It is being used to protect the victim’s egg from the rapist’s sperm.
Even though contraceptive technology is being used, it is specifically being used to protect the woman. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that it is self-defense. This is true as long as we are aware that it is self-defense by medical contraceptive technology. But this use of medical contraceptive technology does not fall under the definition of contraception as defined by the Church. There are those three reasons that Debora and I keep linking to and pasting for easy reading, that explain why this use of medical contraceptive technology as medical contraceptive technology (instead of as other therapeutic means) is not the sin of contraception and does not contradict Church teaching.
The theologians and medical professionals who have the problem with the MAP are rightly concerned that a couple of other quick tests should be performed to increase the certainty that the woman has not ovulated. I agree that their concern is valid. Adequate testing should be done. Ultrasounds take about five minutes. LH tests and pregnancy tests take about 2 minutes each, and could be done concurrently. The entire array of testing suggested to increase certainty that no abortifacient qualities come into play is less than ten minutes.
But it all still boils down to the fact that medical professionals and the Catholic Church have different definitions for the term contraception. Just as medical professionals unfortunately use “abortion” even for miscarriages, there are problems with the difference between medical terminology and the language that general society finds acceptable, too. That doesn’t mean the medical profession is going to change anytime soon in order to suit the preference of grieving mothers who have lost a baby through no fault of their own or leaders in the Catholic Church whose understanding of a term differs from the medical terminology.
Ugh, I am tired. Some of the assertions I have read in this thread still disturb me. Just for the record, those of us who agree with the directives for post-rape treatment are not in disagreement with the Church. And fyi, it is against forum rules for anyone to question the faith of someone else or to tell them that they are in mortal sin or heresy simply on the basis of your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There is a HUGE distinction in culpability here. I wouldn’t ever judge a raped woman on using contraceptives-what would I do? What would I want my wife or sister or daughter to do?

The fact of the matter though is that if the matter is grave the sin is there, no matter how venial.

 

[ahs]

Marc Anthony,

You DO realize, don’t you, that contraception is both a medical term and a term used by the Church?
The Church may very well define the “sin of contraception” as a subset of all the possible uses of medical contraceptive technology.
That particular subset would be sinful, with very well-known exceptions.

To everyone,

Fornication is forbidden. Adultery is forbidden. Rape is forbidden. The only appropriate context for sexual contact to occur is between husband and wife in a lawful (valid) marriage.
Contracepting marital relations is wrong.
Using medicinal contraceptives to protect a rape victim’s body from an assault that continues even after her rapist leaves her is merciful, not sinful. Spermicides have been universally agreed to be licit protocol for post-rape treatment. The MAP (EC) does have some reason for concern, because one must have a reasonable level of certainty that neither fertilization nor ovulation has taken place so that the medication (being used in a medically contraceptive fashion) does not harm a child that has already been conceived. The MAP (Plan B, EC) is a high dose of oral contraceptives, used to prevent ovulation. It is being used to protect the victim’s egg from the rapist’s sperm.
Even though contraceptive technology is being used, it is specifically being used to protect the woman. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that it is self-defense. This is true as long as we are aware that it is self-defense by medical contraceptive technology. But this use of medical contraceptive technology does not fall under the definition of contraception as defined by the Church. There are those three reasons that Debora and I keep linking to and pasting for easy reading, that explain why this use of medical contraceptive technology as medical contraceptive technology (instead of as other therapeutic means) is not the sin of contraception and does not contradict Church teaching.
The theologians and medical professionals who have the problem with the MAP are rightly concerned that a couple of other quick tests should be performed to increase the certainty that the woman has not ovulated. I agree that their concern is valid. Adequate testing should be done. Ultrasounds take about five minutes. LH tests and pregnancy tests take about 2 minutes each, and could be done concurrently. The entire array of testing suggested to increase certainty that no abortifacient qualities come into play is less than ten minutes.
But it all still boils down to the fact that medical professionals and the Catholic Church have different definitions for the term contraception. Just as medical professionals unfortunately use “abortion” even for miscarriages, there are problems with the difference between medical terminology and the language that general society finds acceptable, too. That doesn’t mean the medical profession is going to change anytime soon in order to suit the preference of grieving mothers who have lost a baby through no fault of their own or leaders in the Catholic Church whose understanding of a term differs from the medical terminology.
Ugh, I am tired. Some of the assertions I have read in this thread still disturb me. Just for the record, those of us who agree with the directives for post-rape treatment are not in disagreement with the Church. And fyi, it is against forum rules for anyone to question the faith of someone else or to tell them that they are in mortal sin or heresy simply on the basis of your unsubstantiated opinion.

Good post.

I’ve been continuing to follow along in the thread but I think I’ve seen the best of the information from both (several) sides and it all fundamentally jives. Everyone seems to agree, for the most part, on what is or isn’t licit…it’s the “why” and “how” that is being debated. I’ve got lots to digest on this topic.

 

[LJN21]

Also, there is the fact that any sin has an objective quality and a subjective quality.

Example:

Fornication is an objective mortal sin.
A Catholic woman married outside the church to her husband is not in a valid marriage. Therefore, they are cohabiting and fornicating.

Agreed

A Catholic woman, who never knew she was baptized Catholic as an infant, who later seeks to enter the Catholic Church, but was married outside the Church to her husband is still objectively not in a valid marriage. A convalidation is necessary to make their marriage valid before God. However, neither she nor her husband would be subjectively guilty of the sins of cohabitation or fornication, even after she became aware of the need for convalidation.

Okay

Here the Church teaches that one thing is always wrong, fornication. Objectively, it is a mortal sin. However, subjectively, there may be scenarios where, without contradicting Church teaching, a couple may not only NOT be guilty of mortal sin, but not even venial sin.

Perhaps this is the kind of pastoral decision-making that the US bishops involved in developing the directives we have been discussing used. We cannot discern the sinfulness of another person’s actions, but priests and bishops are trained to do just that, and to suggest moral ways of restoring justice, too. All without ever contradicting the Church’s teachings on anything.

The problem is sex is not a intrinsically evil act. The morally of the act is completely dependent on the situation you are in.

The Church has said Contraception IS an intrinsically evil act and my never be done for any reason. So for this to be okay, it has to be something other than Contraception.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

mommamaree, the problem I see is that you use the term “universally agreed” for spermicide. I highly doubt that’s true. This thread is enough to show that. I doubt all the U.S. bishops believe it’s true.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Church has said Contraception IS an intrinsically evil act and my never be done for any reason. So for this to be okay, it has to be something other than Contraception.

This is, indeed, exactly my point. The Church has spoken on the issue of contraception. The question is, is using methods to prevent conception after rape what the Church defines as contraception. This is a difficult question, the answer of which I’m not sure of.

 

[mommamaree]

mommamaree, the problem I see is that you use the term “universally agreed” for spermicide. I highly doubt that’s true. This thread is enough to show that. I doubt all the U.S. bishops believe it’s true.

Sorry, I meant that even the people who have serious concerns about the MAP agree that spermicidal gels and douches don’t carry any of those concerns and their use is suggested even in situations where MAP is not provided. I should have worded that a lot more clearly. I will try to watch out for hyperbole.

Edited to add: further clarification, by “people”, I mean those involved in publishing professional opinions on these issues. I have read several articles both supporting MAP, and those who still have reservations about MAP (especially with the protocol of testing prior to using MAP). All of the opinions granted that spermicide was acceptable.

 

[fix]

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.

Exactly right. The documents posted are not moral theology texts.

 

[Debora123]

I question the website for the same reason I question the Bishops.

Ah, I see…

I suspect they’re not making a distinction between Church-defined contraception and common usage contraception.

You’re right, they’re NOT making a distinction between “church defined contraception” and “common usage contraception.” Not a single source we’ve seen so far has.

And that’s because in this case, there is no distinction to be made. They are both contraception. Only difference is that it’s permissible to be used in rape, and not permissible to be used in marriage.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

And that’s because in this case, there is no distinction to be made. They are both contraception. Only difference is that it’s permissible to be used in rape, and not permissible to be used in marriage.

Your definition defined contraception very specifically as a marital act.

I think LJN21 hit the nail on the head:

The Church has said Contraception IS an intrinsically evil act and my never be done for any reason. So for this to be okay, it has to be something other than Contraception

 

[LJN21]

And that’s because in this case, there is no distinction to be made. They are both contraception. Only difference is that it’s permissible to be used in rape, and not permissible to be used in marriage.

Again that is not possible. One may never do something that is intrinsically evil. This is a fundamental rule of moral theology that can not be broken.

 

[Debora123]

Your definition defined contraception very specifically as a marital act.

How so?

You’re trying to make the claim that contraception is only contraception when used between married people.

This is something the Church has never even alluded to.