If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[ValPal]

Then I don’t understand then why you would bring it up to help solve the morality of this issue. The Pope has clearly stated that condom even to prevent STD’s was not the Moral solution.

I didn’t bring it up to help solve anything. I brought it up simply to mention that is helped me clarify some issues that I was previously confused on.

To me it sounded like you were trying extrapolate that one part of his statement to mean some how condom (contraception) use out side of marriage.

Nope. Don’t read into issues that aren’t there.

I was simply saying thanks to all, and leave it at that.

 

[Debora123]

I didn’t bring it up to help solve anything. I brought it up simply to mention that is helped me clarify some issues that I was previously confused on.

Nope. Don’t read into issues that aren’t there.

I was simply saying thanks to all, and leave it at that.

(now you see what i’ve been dealing with lol)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

For mommamaree…

I will confess, I am not intellectually capable of following the Summa Theolgica.

I just wanted to touch on the excerpt printed here:

1. He did differentiate between seduction and rape.
2. I don’t see him saying that contraception for rape vicitms was wrong.
3. the highlighted parts seem to refer to sexual acts that cannot lead to procreation (generation) he also referred them to “unnatural acts” so I don’t think he’s referring to contraception.
4. There were no contraceptives post coital that were not abortifacient at the time.
5. The objections that seem to exist over so called “Plan B” is if it works as a contraceptive only or if it can be an abortifacient, and is it possible to tell how they would differ in function.

My first post gave the explanation by Father Torraco on why it would be permissable. You posted the guidlines for Catholic Hospitals. They seem to be very similar ideas that protecting oneself from an attack including the sperm is permissible morally.

 

[LJN21]

Another thought just occurred to me…I wonder how many people even realize that the meaning of rape has gone through some dramatic changes in recent history. From biblical times up until the modern era, rape referred to the abduction and seduction of a woman still under the authority of her father. In other words, any young, unmarried woman who was seduced OR forcibly violated was raped. In today’s parlance, we might call it statutory rape, but that doesn’t even cover all the possible scenarios meant by rape. A woman under the authority and protection of her father was thought to lack the ability to give free consent to sexual activity. Therefore, it was all rape. Her own culpability only came into question if the rape occurred in a very public location and without threat of violence she decided not to scream for help or fight or run. I think this is mainly because virgins were expected to highly value their chastity and virginity (obviously, right?).
So, even in situations where the girl decided to go along with sexual contact, it was still considered rape, and did injury not only to the girl (her chances at marriage) but also her family (reputation). In those possibly “consensual” scenarios (even though true consent was considered to be lacking), Aquinas would have been quite right to say that contraception would be wrong. Also, remember that the OT (Old Covenant) stated that a rapist may redeem his victim by marrying her! When I read this as a young girl, I was absolutely horrified. The OT is definitely not age-appropriate reading for young girls, because women were treated as property, and rape was viewed more as a form of theft against the girl’s father than violence against the girl.
Aquinas was likely expounding upon these views espoused in the OT.

He was pretty clear on the evils of rape. He different was not expanding on OT views.

Also, remember that he stated that ensoulment happens at 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls. Aquinas knew absolutely nothing about genetic material.

Lack of knowledge about one subject (genetics) in no way diminishes his knowledge for other subjects(Theology) That is a logical falicy, It has a name I just don’t remember what it is off the top of my head.

Modern contraceptive technologies are BASED UPON extensive knowledge of genetic material and fertility.

Thats not really relevant because contraction is still wrong regardless of how much knowledge of genetics they have.

The Church has spoken out loud and clear about the proper context for sexuality, She has redefined rape differently than the ancient understanding of it,

Yeah, in the New testament…

She has admitted there are licit uses for oral contraceptive medications,

Taking medicine to correct an medical condition is morally licit.

but through it all, She has been shouting from the rooftops that sexual relations are for a validly married husband and wife and that each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative. She has had to be ever more clear about this as the centuries passed, because as human understanding of the natural world has grown, so too has our hubris. She had to take up new terminology, but use them carefully with clarifications, because older terminology doesn’t acknowledge all that we now know about human sexuality, genetics, procreation, etc.

Updated terms does not mean new morals.

Aquinas might have said contraception even in rape was wrong…I don’t see that specifically said in the documents given here, but in case I missed it, let’s explore that a bit.
Would a saint really have said that repelling a rapist so that he must withdraw prior to ejaculation is wrong?

He didn’t say that. He was talking about fornication.

Would a saint really have said that a virtuous young lady must remain passive during a rape because it is the nature of the venereal act to beget children?

He never ones addressed self defense in what I linked. Nor would he in that chaper. That said there probably is a chapter somewhere about the moralities of self defense there some where.

Would a saint really have said she may not cleanse the semen from her private parts after the attack?

Agian, was not part of the point I was trying to make.

I seriously doubt he ever would have meant to imply any of those things. And the fact remains, that our knowledge has grown, and our technology has grown. Aquinas did not know about aggressive little cells called sperm. Aquinas did not know about ovulation. Many of the so-called contraceptive techniques used in the ancient and medieval eras were only possible in consensual sexual behaviors or were actually abortifacient potions and suppositories. These of course would be rejected by him, as well they should by us today.

Wait, so if he didn’t have any idea what sperm is, how would he have any idea what contraception did? If he was that much of a backwater idiot how did he even know what made people pregnant and that it wasn’t just some act of God when two people laid in bed together?

The man lived in form 1225-1274, he had enough basic medical knowledge to figure out what was going on. The argument your making is basically the same argument they made to the pope before he wrote HV. “The Church was so old and dumb back then, they didn’t understand what our science can do now.” The pope rejected that thought.

 

[LJN21]

1. the highlighted parts seem to refer to sexual acts that cannot lead to procreation (generation) he also referred them to “unnatural acts” so I don’t think he’s referring to contraception.

Summa:

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;”

The “hindering the begetting of children” is the “vice against nature” (vice aginst natural law)that happen with every verneral at form which “generation cannot follow”.

Now sure how else you would define the “hindering of begetting of children” other than deliberately frustrating the procreative nature.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The “hindering the begetting of children” is the “vice against nature” (vice aginst natural law)that happen with every verneral at form which “generation cannot follow”.

Now sure how else you would define the “hindering of begetting of children” other than deliberately frustrating the procreative nature.

So you don’t seee it as acts that cannot cause pregnancy?

Not all sexual acts are ordered towards procreation, hence “generation cannot follow” and “vice against natural law”.

 

[mommamaree]

He was pretty clear on the evils of rape. He different was not expanding on OT views.

Lack of knowledge about one subject (genetics) in no way diminishes his knowledge for other subjects(Theology) That is a logical falicy, It has a name I just don’t remember what it is off the top of my head.

Thats not really relevant because contraction is still wrong regardless of how much knowledge of genetics they have.

Yeah, in the New testament…

Taking medicine to correct an medical condition is morally licit.

You mean using the term contraction in stead of the term sorcery and potions as it was called in the new testament and early Church documents? Thats the only one I’ve seen.

He didn’t say that. He was talking about fornication.
He never ones addressed self defense in what I linked. Nor would he in that chaper. That said there probably is a chapter somewhere about the moralities of self defense there some where.
Agian, was not part of the point I was trying to make.

Wait, so if he didn’t have any idea what sperm is, how would he have any idea what contraception did? If **he was that much of a backwater idiot **how did he even know what made people pregnant and that it wasn’t just some act of God when two people laid in bed together?

The man lived in form 1225-1274, he had enough basic medical knowledge to figure out what was going on. The argument your making is basically the same argument they made to the pope before he wrote HV. “The Church was so old and dumb back then, they didn’t understand what our science can do now.” The pope rejected that thought.

Wow! You are being so rude! The post you responded to was not even addressed at you. Additionally, I was saying the the holiness and wisdom of St. Aquinas would have prevented him from making those assertions. YOU are the one who used such disparaging language about a saint you claim to admire.

St. Aquinas did NOT know about sperm. He did NOT know about eggs and ovulation. Contraceptive materials in Aquinas’ day were actually abortifacients, and he was right to be adamantly opposed to their use. Modern medications and technologies allow for medication to be administered in certain circumstances where its possible abortifacients qualities will NOT come into play. That is the basis of the Peoria Protocol, as well as the suggestion of the use of ultrasound. These are things that Aquinas could never have had any knowledge of or even anticipated.

To the rest of your post, I don’t even know what to say. You have obviously read into my post something that is not there. I cannot even figure out what exactly you are objecting to.

But I frankly felt the need to reply to the nasty tone at the end. I highly respect Aquinas, just like many other Catholics. But he, like St. Augustine, were not omnicient. They did not know everything. As human knowledge has expanding, the Church has rightly clarified places where these holy men said things that appeared to contradict the reality that we now understand. NO ONE, in pointing out errors or gaps in understanding, would be right to insult these holy and wise men. I am frankly appalled at the language you use in projecting nasty attitudes upon me.

 

[LJN21]

So you don’t seee it as acts that cannot cause pregnancy?

Not all sexual acts are ordered towards procreation, hence “generation cannot follow” and “vice against natural law”.

I understand, but in context his specifically talking about fornication and other venereal sin.

What you speak of is “Unnatural Vices” its got its own section.

Summa:

I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called “the unnatural vice.” This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of “uncleanness” which some call “effeminacy.” Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called “bestiality.” Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.” Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Okay, to clarify, you say that a woman may take contraception after rape. Not to be defined or stated as anything else. Contraception.

You are going against Church teaching, not mine. Here’s proof:

On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II told a group of priests that **“contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” **

So either what a woman does to prevent conception after rape isn’t contraception or you are against the teaching of the Church.

tldm.org/news6/contraception.htm

IMHO, JPII did not have rape victims in mind at all when he made this statement. He is talking in normal circumstances. For example, “we can’t afford more children” or “NFP just doesn’t work for me” or “I was told I medically shouldn’t have anymore children”.

 

[LJN21]

Wow! You are being so rude! The post you responded to was not even addressed at you. Additionally, I was saying the the holiness and wisdom of St. Aquinas would have prevented him from making those assertions. YOU are the one who used such disparaging language about a saint you claim to admire.

I’m sorry you feel I’m being rude.I did not mean to come off rude.

How little you seemed to think he understood shocked me.

St. Aquinas did NOT know about sperm. He did NOT know about eggs and ovulation. Contraceptive materials in Aquinas’ day were actually abortifacients, and he was right to be adamantly opposed to their use. Modern medications and technologies allow for medication to be administered in certain circumstances where its possible abortifacients qualities will NOT come into play. That is the basis of the Peoria Protocol, as well as the suggestion of the use of ultrasound. These are things that Aquinas could never have had any knowledge of or even anticipated.

The concept of mans “seed” is as old as the bible. Knowledge of it on a microscopic level is not necessary to understand that is part of what makes babies. How it does, what it does, doesn’t apply to what he was talking about in this situation. There are places where it is, and that knowledge is outdated but this is not one of them.

To the rest of your post, I don’t even know what to say. You have obviously read into my post something that is not there. I cannot even figure out what exactly you are objecting to.

But I frankly felt the need to reply to the nasty tone at the end. I highly respect Aquinas, just like many other Catholics. But he, like St. Augustine, were not omnicient. They did not know everything. As human knowledge has expanding, the Church has rightly clarified places where these holy men said things that appeared to contradict the reality that we now understand. NO ONE, in pointing out errors or gaps in understanding, would be right to insult these holy and wise men. I am frankly appalled at the language you use in projecting nasty attitudes upon me.

Yes, Human knowledge expands, but morals change do not. By saying contraption is O.K in this situation you are changing the morals which is something the Church never does.

 

[Debora123]

The argument your making is basically the same argument they made to the pope before he wrote HV. “The Church was so old and dumb back then, they didn’t understand what our science can do now.” The pope rejected that thought.

Wow. Mamamaree is not making that argument at all. :nope:

Again, Aquinas is not infallible.

 

[Debora123]

Wow! You are being so rude! The post you responded to was not even addressed at you. Additionally, I was saying the the holiness and wisdom of St. Aquinas would have prevented him from making those assertions. YOU are the one who used such disparaging language about a saint you claim to admire.

St. Aquinas did NOT know about sperm. He did NOT know about eggs and ovulation. Contraceptive materials in Aquinas’ day were actually abortifacients, and he was right to be adamantly opposed to their use. Modern medications and technologies allow for medication to be administered in certain circumstances where its possible abortifacients qualities will NOT come into play. That is the basis of the Peoria Protocol, as well as the suggestion of the use of ultrasound. These are things that Aquinas could never have had any knowledge of or even anticipated.

To the rest of your post, I don’t even know what to say. You have obviously read into my post something that is not there. I cannot even figure out what exactly you are objecting to.

But I frankly felt the need to reply to the nasty tone at the end. I highly respect Aquinas, just like many other Catholics. But he, like St. Augustine, were not omnicient. They did not know everything. As human knowledge has expanding, the Church has rightly clarified places where these holy men said things that appeared to contradict the reality that we now understand. NO ONE, in pointing out errors or gaps in understanding, would be right to insult these holy and wise men. I am frankly appalled at the language you use in projecting nasty attitudes upon me.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m sorry you feel I’m being rude.I did not mean to come off rude.

How little you seemed to think he understood shocked me.

The concept of mans “seed” is as old as the bible. Knowledge of it on a microscopic level is not necessary to understand that is part of what makes babies. How it does, what it does, doesn’t apply to what he was talking about in this situation. There are places where it is, and that knowledge is outdated but this is not one of them.

Yes, Human knowledge expands, but morals change do not. By saying contraption is O.K in this situation you are changing the morals which is something the Church never does.

I did not think he lacked understanding that he should have had. I said that human knowledge has increased. There is a huge difference.
The concept of man’s seed is as old as the bible, as you say. However, that concept is NOT consistent with the reality of genetic material, inheritance, reproduction/procreation. For a very long time, very wise people mistakenly believed that the man planted his seed in the fertile soil of the womb of the woman. His was the nobler, more active role. Hers was the more passive role. This is just not consistent with reality. Male and female both contribute to conception. Oral contraceptive medicine does not destroy the man’s seed. Instead it inhibits ovulation. No destruction is taking place. In the case of rape, the use of Plan B protects her egg from the rapist’s sperm. Spermicides, however, which have been given wider approval in the case of rape than Plan B, actually do destroy sperm. In addition, semen does not contain seeds that are planted. Sperm are active, locomotive cells that swim their way through the womb to find the egg. In the case of a sexual assault, those cells are unjust aggressors. They have no right to be there in the first place, and the female victim has no obligation to contribute her egg for conception.
I never once said morals should change. That is another instance of you reading things into my post that are simply not there. I said that as circumstances change, the Church must carefully consider what is moral and what is not. As an example, transportation technology has increased and expanding dramatically, providing moral scenarios for the Church to consider that were not even imaginable before. So the Church had to say that driving a car is morally neutral, drinking alcohol moderately is okay, drinking alcohol to the point of impairment is sinful, and driving while drunk is sinful. The morals don’t change. Circumstances change. Technology changes. Therefore the Church must clarify how the faithful must navigate in a changed world.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m sorry you feel I’m being rude.I did not mean to come off rude.

How little you seemed to think he understood shocked me.

Also, this is not an apology. Saying “I’m sorry you feel…” is not an apology. And with respect to your second sentence, I am not sure I believe that. Your strong language indicates otherwise.

 

[LJN21]

I did not think he lacked understanding that he should have had. I said that human knowledge has increased. There is a huge difference.
The concept of man’s seed is as old as the bible, as you say. However, that concept is NOT consistent with the reality of genetic material, inheritance, reproduction/procreation. For a very long time, very wise people mistakenly believed that the man planted his seed in the fertile soil of the womb of the woman. His was the nobler, more active role. Hers was the more passive role. This is just not consistent with reality. Male and female both contribute to conception. Oral contraceptive medicine does not destroy the man’s seed. Instead it inhibits ovulation. No destruction is taking place.

I get all this I do. I just has no barring on what it said. He said preventing the making of baby while fornicating was two sin and not just one. The method of how they prevent making babies is irreverent, he just said you can’t not do.

Which has NOTHING to do with the preventing of ovulation in a rape victim. That was never my point.

My point was attempting to establish the natural law in regard to sex and to say That just because your not married doesn’t mean barrier method contraception is some how moral neutral.

In the case of rape, the use of Plan B protects her egg from the rapist’s sperm.

I know what it does. I’ve posted the websites explaining it. All I can say on the morality of that issue is its under debate.

Spermicides, however, which have been given wider approval in the case of rape than Plan B, actually do destroy sperm. In addition, semen does not contain seeds that are planted. Sperm are active, locomotive cells that swim their way through the womb to find the egg. In the case of a sexual assault, those cells are unjust aggressors. They have no right to be there in the first place, and the female victim has no obligation to contribute her egg for conception.

Yeah, I know how it works. I have never once said she can’t protect her self. I understand that it STOP conception. But THEOLOGICALLY speaking this can’t be an act of contraception. It has to be an action out of self defense, or something else.

I never once said morals should change.

Well if contraception is now okay in this one place. Its not an internist evil anymore and morals do change.

That is another instance of you reading things into my post that are simply not there. I said that as circumstances change, the Church must carefully consider what is moral and what is not. As an example, transportation technology has increased and expanding dramatically, providing moral scenarios for the Church to consider that were not even imaginable before. So the Church had to say that driving a car is morally neutral, drinking alcohol moderately is okay, drinking alcohol to the point of impairment is sinful, and driving while drunk is sinful. The morals don’t change. Circumstances change. Technology changes. Therefore the Church must clarify how the faithful must navigate in a changed world.

There has been some form of transportation long before the Church was the Church. Yes the technology changes, but not really as much as you seem to think. Everything we have today is just an evolution of what we had yesterday. Even the internet is just a fancy form of basic communication.

Having an much greater understanding of biology does not change the ethics of contraception or self defense.

 

[LJN21]

Also, this is not an apology. Saying “I’m sorry you feel…” is not an apology. And with respect to your second sentence, I am not sure I believe that. Your strong language indicates otherwise.

No, I am sorry you feel that way. The tone of my posts are always straight and to the point, they have a tendency to come off strong and irritated but that is not my intent it just how I write… I’m the one that posted the Aquinas and you seemed to be posted why it doesn’t apply. Why would I not defend my point in the debate?

Look, I posted an point in a debate. In stead of actually debating or pointing out where he is infact wrong. Y’all disregarded it as “too old” or “not infallible”. Even though whats printed in that book is the very foundation of what we are debating right now. How would react if I took the positions that the USCCB statement is not authoritative enough?

 

[LJN21]

So you don’t seee it as acts that cannot cause pregnancy?

I didn’t say that. I said theologically speaking it can’t be classified as “contraception”.

Not all sexual acts are ordered towards procreation, hence “generation cannot follow” and “vice against natural law”.

Exactly. Sexual acts not order to procreation go against natural law and are intrinsically evil. By theological definition of the Church

 

[mommamaree]

I get all this I do. I just has no barring on what it said. He said preventing the making of baby while fornicating was two sin and not just one. The method of how they prevent making babies is irreverent, he just said you can’t not do.

Which has NOTHING to do with the preventing of ovulation in a rape victim. That was never my point.

My point was attempting to establish the natural law in regard to sex and to say That just because your not married doesn’t mean barrier method contraception is some how moral neutral.

I know what it does. I’ve posted the websites explaining it. All I can say on the morality of that issue is its under debate.

Yeah, I know how it works. I have never once said she can’t protect her self. I understand that it STOP conception. But THEOLOGICALLY speaking this can’t be an act of contraception. It has to be an action out of self defense, or something else.

Well if contraception is now okay in this one place. Its not an internist evil anymore and morals do change.

There has been some form of transportation long before the Church was the Church. Yes the technology changes, but not really as much as you seem to think. Everything we have today is just an evolution of what we had yesterday. Even the internet is just a fancy form of basic communication.

Having an much greater understanding of biology does not change the ethics of contraception or self defense.

LJN,
What are you talking about? What do you see in my posts that you are objecting to? You are seriously confusing me. You seem to be objecting to something that you think I am saying, but then restate many of my points. Please try to read my posts more carefully in future.

I stand by the guidance of the Church that rape is a violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. I agree that the rape victim has the right to repel the rapist at any time. The documents we have been sharing here say she may repel him before, during and after the attack, and that this includes his sperm (which is also an unjust aggressor). I agree with the instructions to carefully determine whether or not a woman is already pregnant or if she has already ovulated prior to administering Plan B. In fact, I even agree that the addition of a couple of extra tests, such as ultrasound imaging of the ovaries would be wise. This would help alleviate the victim’s fear of accidental abortion, and would focus upon preventing ovulation, if it is possible to do so at that time in her cycle. I agree that cleansing her of her rapist’s semen/sperm, whether with spermicides or regular douches, is a reasonable idea. After all, what woman would not want to be allowed to cleanse herself after an assault. I never ever ever said that barrier method is morally neutral for marital relations. In fact, marital relations may NEVER be contracepted, before, during, or after.
My only assertion that you seem to take issue with is the fact that I have no problem with medical professionals referring to EC after rape as contraceptive medicine. I don’t have a problem with medical professionals using that term there. I also do not have a problem with them using the word “spontaneous abortion” when referring to miscarriage, despite the fact that I have experienced two emotionally painful miscarriages. Their terminology is their terminology and it doesn’t always sound pleasant or acceptable to our ears.
Take a look back at some of the documents we have shared in this discussion regarding the treatment of rape victims. You see that even Church leaders are using the medical terminology in those instances, because they are not theological treatises, they are instructions to medical personnel. I am not a theologian. I enjoy reading theological works, up to a point. But as I said before, what it all boils down to for me is “Lord, what must I do?”…as in the question the young man asked our Lord…?
I care about the practical realities that follow from theology. That is what most lay Catholics must concern themselves with. I will continue to leave it to the Bishops to make the decisions and the explanations.
So please, stop ascribing to me motives that are not there. Having grown up with a sociopath for a mother, I cannot handle the slapdowns for motives that I do not even have.

 

[mommamaree]

1. No, I am sorry you feel that way.

1. The tone of my posts are always straight and to the point, they have a tendency to come off strong and irritated but that is not my intent it just how I write…

1. I’m the one that posted the Aquinas and you seemed to be posted why it doesn’t apply. Why would I not defend my point in the debate?

1. Look, I posted an point in a debate. In stead of actually debating or pointing out where he is infact wrong. Y’all disregarded it as “too old” or “not infallible”. Even though whats printed in that book is the very foundation of what we are debating right now. How would react if I took the positions that the USCCB statement is not authoritative enough?

To #1: There it is again “I am sorry you feel…”

To #2: You are not as straightforward and succinct as you might like to imagine yourself to be. You used some pretty strong language and ascribed motives to myself and several other posters that simply were not there. You cannot claim that brevity or succinctness is the problem.

To #3: Again, for the third time…I did not address that post to you at all. It was extemporaneous waxing on the changing definitions of words over time, and how that, plus increased human knowledge, makes misunderstandings more common when we refer to older theological works without understanding the difference in those definitions. Obviously a problem here…so kinda proves my point.

To #4: Do not address me as “Y’all” when you should know very well that I never said anything about being “old” or “not infallible”. Additionally, the affected Southern twang as an indication of attempted politeness only works face to face. I know. I am a Carolinian. We say “y’all” down here when we are being super polite and approachable. You, however, continue to ascribe motives that are nonexistent.

 

[LJN21]

So, a while back in the thread someone presented the idea that contraception is OK in this case because it is not “the conjugal union”. They then took that point forward to say that barrier method contraception must be okay for non married people because that is not “the conjugal union” either and not required to be procreative. If you go back and look at some of the other post you see this idea is still prevalent in this thread.

My point is that all Sex act’s are to be procreative and unitive by their very nature (natural law). Ilicit sex acts are made worse by going against natural law, I used Aquinas to support my point.

This is why rape is intrinsic evil. It is a volition of the nature of sex. The requirement to be procreative is not there for the victim not because its not “the conjugal act” (which its obviously not) but because its a violation of her person and she is an unwilling participant in the sex act. Therefor is has the right to defend her self from the attack.

As you see the ends are the same. But one way of thinking about it one way underscores that contraception is still intrinsically evil. The other line of thought makes it to appear that certain contraceptives are moral neutral out side of marriage which makes them no longer Intrinsically evil.