If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[Nate13]

Looks to me like we ourselves a moral question that is worthy of being formally resolved by the Church, in addition to the definition of “sex” and “contraception”, which apparently are up for debate.

I disagree with those commenters who have said something to the effect of “rape is not sex, it is an act of violence” on that basis that it is a false dichotomy (if by violence, they meant physical violence).

There is no purpose to the term “consensual sex” if there doesn’t exist its opposite: non-consensual sex.

Also, an act of rape is not necessarily violent. It can take the form of a man who drugs a woman and “enters her” while she is not conscious and without using physical force or aggressively handling her body.

That aside, the most intriguing argument that I saw, in favor of the use of the morning after pill by a rape victim, is the one put forward by the commenter who made mention of that fact that a third party (person) who intervenes in the rape act, in defense of the victim, is morally justified in his intervention, but we would not call him an agent of contraception on that basis. Similarly, we probably all agree that if the victim fought off her rapist while he was inside her such that ejaculation did not occur, she is morally justified, and is not guilty of the sin of onanism. If this can be granted, then, I fully admit, it is difficult to see how the use of the morning after pill post- rape, pre-conception, is objectionable. For the time being though, I will remain agnostic as to this issue.

One other question though (for those proposing that contraception pertains only to marriage, thus it is impossible to commit the sin of contraception outside of marriage):
WHAT ABOUT MARITAL RAPE? Should be an interesting addition to the discussion.

In its simplest explanation contracepting is a sin because its a contradiction of the act that is being committed. Within marriage during a sexual act that is supposed to be a complete gift of both persons to each other as they are at that time, contracepting would be a contradiction of a sexual act within marriage. During any act of sex outside of marriage the act is already by default a contradiction whether those involved use a contraceptive or not. Thus using a contraceptive would not actually contradict a sexual act outside of marriage. In other words the act was never meant to be a complete gift of self between the two person, and taking steps to reject the sperm of the other person is just the same as rejecting the advance of the other person before the rape even began.

The morning after pill could never be used if there is a possibility it will cause harm to a newly conceived child. There is no doubt about the answer to that question. I agree with the logic you put forward which I myself laid out about 10 pages ago, that if its considered the sin of contraception to prevent conception from occurring after the sperm are already in a woman, it would also have to be considered the sin of contraception if the woman getting raped attempted to get away while being raped, because that could be considered pulling out.

 

[Debora123]

In its simplest explanation contracepting is a sin because its a contradiction of the act that is being committed. Within marriage during a sexual act that is supposed to be a complete gift of both persons to each other as they are at that time, contracepting would be a contradiction of a sexual act within marriage. During any act of sex outside of marriage the act is already by default a contradiction whether those involved use a contraceptive or not. Thus using a contraceptive would not actually contradict a sexual act outside of marriage. In other words the act was never meant to be a complete gift of self between the two person, and taking steps to reject the sperm of the other person is just the same as rejecting the advance of the other person before the rape even began.

 

[levinas12]

It should be noted that the Vatican has gotten involved in the EC controversy. For a long time, the United Nations has been advocating the use of EC in refugee camps and other areas of the world where rape systematically occurs. The Church has vigorously opposed this.

I think EC was also an issue in Connecticut where the local bishops were being forced to allow EC in Catholic hospitals. There may be other states as well as where this is happening.

And of course there’s the 2012 Presidential contest where one of the points of contention is whether the US government has the authority to force Catholic institutions to cover contraceptives (including EC) in their health insurance policies.

So there’s a huge political context here.

Again, I understand that posters on this thread are supporting only a very limited form of EC, one where tests for ovulation have been conducted to ensure against possible abortions as a result of EC.

But it appears that there’s confusion about what natural law arguments against artificial contraception really mean. The ban on contraceptives does not just apply to marital sexual intercourse but to all other acts of sexual intercourse. Contraceptives flout natural ends, they are contra naturam, they contradict the “language” of the body.

f we don’t anchor the Church’s teaching in the body itself, then we are left with an ethic of subjective human intentions.

I think a lot of Catholics have already succumbed to such an ethic. Specifically, for these Catholics, the intention “not to conceive” trumps “natural ends”.

With all this going on, it’s not surprising that the Vatican is apparently taking its time in deciding whether “Catholic” EC after rape is morally acceptable.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would like to point out a resource that might be useful.

If anyone has the book *Catholicism for Dummies *touches upon contraceptive use for rape victims on pages 224-226.

The book carries an Imprimatur.

The authors are John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Kenneth Brighenti, Ph.D.

Again, I think if any doubts exist regarding licitness of defending from rape with post-coital contraception, It is due to the doubt if it works as a contraception or as a abortifacient.

 

[Ana_v]

It should be noted that the Vatican has gotten involved in the EC controversy. For a long time, the United Nations has been advocating the use of EC in refugee camps and other areas of the world where rape systematically occurs. The Church has vigorously opposed this.

Hence why I wish to remain agnostic about the moral permissibility of Emergency Contraception in cases of rape. The leaders within the Church seem to give mixed responses, as indicated by the policies they support/establish (dispensing EC at Catholic hospitals for cases of rape) or reject (dispensing EC for rape victims refugee camps).

That said, I think its very plausible that the controversy over the use of EC by rape victims is due to the capably abortive property of EC.

I’m still confused though as to the morality of contraception in consensual fornication.

One commenter suggested that the act of fornication is in-itself contraceptive (thus the use of contraceptive products would not compound the sin) because the total-gift of self (i.e. unitive property of sex) cannot be fulfilled outside of marriage, since no such mutual commitment has been made in the form of vows, with respect to which sex would be the physical expression of.

Other commenters maintain that in consensual sex outside of marriage, contraception does compound the sin of fornication, because though the sexual partners are not bound by marriage, the language of their bodies in sex nevertheless indicates a total self-giving, and contraception violates that language.

 

[levinas12]

What we are saying is that whether or not contraception was used in fornication is a moot point… (unless it is abortifacient)

I disagee. Contraception used in fornication adds an additional dimension of evil to the act. It carries with it its own “contra naturam”.

 

[Debora123]

I disagee. Contraception used in fornication adds an additional dimension of evil to the act. It carries with it its own “contra naturam”.

I know you disagree.

 

[Ana_v]

Marital rape is still rape, meaning it’s RAPE not the marital act (even if they are married). Thus it should be treated as a rape because that is what it is.

The reason why the qualifier “marital” matters, is in light of the fact that some commenters belong to the side that claims that the use of contraception – for the purpose of preventing pregnancy – is intrinsically evil only within marriage (thus extrinsically evil outside of marriage).

Marital rape occurs, by definition, within marriage, thus the use of emergency contraception by a woman who was raped by her husband, so as to avoid conceiving, would fall under intrinsically evil.

What is disturbing about this whole thread, is that at some point the statement "contraception is intrinsically evil " loses its meaning the more qualifications and exceptions are added to it.

The easiest answer (logically speaking, not emotionally) to the can-the-rape victim -use -emergency contraception question, is “no”.

Answering in the affirmative raises more questions than it solves.

I think we have ourselves a prime example of a very difficult question. As far as I’m aware, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not address the morality of the use of emergency contraception by rape victims. I don’t think that is incidental or accidental.

 

[Nate13]

@levinas

I have yet to see this point addressed, and its what is making me logically believe that preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg if there is no chance of killing a newly conceived life may be permissible in cases of rape.

If as you say it would be considered a sin to take an emergency contraceptive in the case of rape even when its been determined there is no danger to life, how is it not also a sin for the woman to do anything else while being raped that might prevent the act from being finished “correctly”. Just even bringing up this notion seems absurd to me, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it. I assume you do not believe its a sin for the woman to attempt to get away while being raped, but wouldn’t that have to be considered pulling out and thus the sin of contracepting as well?

 

[Debora123]

The reason why the qualifier “marital” matters, is in light of the fact that some commenters belong to the side that claims that the use of contraception – for the purpose of preventing pregnancy – is intrinsically evil only within marriage (thus extrinsically evil outside of marriage).

Marital rape occurs, by definition, within marriage, thus the use of emergency contraception by a woman who was raped by her husband, so as to avoid conceiving, would fall under intrinsically evil.

What is disturbing about this whole thread, is that at some point the statement "contraception is intrinsically evil " loses its meaning the more qualifications and exceptions are added to it.

The easiest answer (logically speaking, not emotionally) to the can-the-rape victim -use -emergency contraception question, is “no”.

Answering in the affirmative raises more questions than it solves.

I think we have ourselves a prime example of a very difficult question. As far as I’m aware, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not address the morality of the use of emergency contraception by rape victims. I don’t think that is incidental or accidental.

Once again, rape within marriage is not the “conjugal act.” The conjugal act is called to be both unitive and procreative. Rape is called to never take place to begin with.

 

[LJN21]

Once again, rape within marriage is not the “conjugal act.” The conjugal act is called to be both unitive and procreative. Rape is called to never take place to begin with.

Once again the burden of proof is on you that only the “conjugal act” and sex acts have nature of being procreative and unitive. I have provided proof. Just posting you disagree does nothing straighten this position or further the debate.

 

[LJN21]

Once again, rape within marriage is not the “conjugal act.” The conjugal act is called to be both unitive and procreative. Rape is called to never take place to begin with.

And this is why your position is flawed. How is it not the “conjugal act” by your definition… You said the “conjugal act” and the properties is something happens when you get married which is why the church has said no contraceptives in marriage. Now here you are advocating a position that where they can be used in marriage.

Here is the problem. In marriage the spouse have a right to each others bodies. Thats why it is a sin to tell you spouse no to sex with out good reason. That is also why the use of NFP has to be consensual. In this case it does have the right to her body. That said, it still a grave sin, but Contraception would not be aloud.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

And this is why your position is flawed. How is it not the “conjugal act” by your definition… You said the “conjugal act” and the properties is something happens when you get married which is why the church has said no contraceptives in marriage. Now here you are advocating a position that where they can be used in marriage.

Here is the problem. In marriage the spouse have a right to each others bodies. Thats why it is a sin to tell you spouse no to sex with out good reason. That is also why the use of NFP has to be consensual. In this case it does have the right to her body. That said, it still a grave sin, but no Contraception would not be aloud.

I agree that rape in a marriage would probably not qualify for the use of a contraceptive. However, calling it a sin to tell your spouse you don’t feel like having sex at that moment is grey area. Being married doesn’t mean the spouse gets it whenever he/she feel is like it. A man is sinning by forcing his wife to have sex if she doesn’t feel like it. Good reason can be exhausted or not emotionally feeling up to it.

 

[levinas12]

@levinas

I have yet to see this point addressed, and its what is making me logically believe that preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg if there is no chance of killing a newly conceived life may be permissible in cases of rape.

If as you say it would be considered a sin to take an emergency contraceptive in the case of rape even when its been determined there is no danger to life, how is it not also a sin for the woman to do anything else while being raped that might prevent the act from being finished “correctly”. Just even bringing up this notion seems absurd to me, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on it. I assume you do not believe its a sin for the woman to attempt to get away while being raped, but wouldn’t that have to be considered pulling out and thus the sin of contracepting as well?

 

[levinas12]

I know you disagree.

Fornication which is open to procreation may not be sufficiently unitive.

But fornication where contraceptives are used is neither open to procreation nor is it sufficiently unitive.

“Not being opened to procreation” is the additional “contra naturam”. And this adds more evil.

 

[levinas12]

I would like to point out a resource that might be useful.

If anyone has the book *Catholicism for Dummies *touches upon contraceptive use for rape victims on pages 224-226.

The book carries an Imprimatur.

The authors are John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Kenneth Brighenti, Ph.D.

Again, I think if any doubts exist regarding licitness of defending from rape with post-coital contraception, It is due to the doubt if it works as a contraception or as a abortifacient.

Thank you for the reference. I just read the section you highlighted. And I did notice the imprimatur.

I think you are correct that the concern is whether there’s any possibility of causing an abortion. Other material I’ve read expresses a similar concern. Apparently, some pro-life doctors believe that the tests for ovulation may not be conclusive enough so there’s a risk that the EC would act as an abortifacient.

I know that this is a different issue. But it is a real issue nonetheless.

A related problem is the massivness of the dose of synthetic hormones required to immediately suppress ovulation. It’s not clear whether this would have a deleterious effect on the health of the woman.

That said - I have to admit that there are strong arguments for allowing post-coital contraception in the case of rape if it can be shown that it poses no risk of abortion. The self-defense argument has a lot of merit. Hopefully, the Vatican will weigh in soon on Catholic EC after rape.

 

[levinas12]

… you say it would be considered a sin to take an emergency contraceptive in the case of rape even when its been determined there is no danger to life …

What is problematic is determining whether there is a risk of an abortion.

EC is only necessary if there is a chance of an imminent ovulation which could lead to fertilization and pregnancy. The whole thing is dicey. On the one hand, everyone is rushing to suppress an ovulation that is about to occur. On the other hand, the effort to suppress may be too late and EC will cause an abortion.

But if it were a matter of simply suppressing ovulation, I agree that there are strong arguments for “Catholic EC” in the case of rape.

 

[Debora123]

Fornication which is open to procreation may not be sufficiently unitive.

But fornication where contraceptives are used is neither open to procreation nor is it sufficiently unitive.

“Not being opened to procreation” is the additional “contra naturam”. And this adds more evil.

Yes, I know that’s how you feel about it. Thank you.

PS - When someone responds to you with just a “I disagree”, that means they don’t really want to discuss it anymore. Either because they don’t think it’s worth it, or because it’s already been discussed extensively, or both.

 

[Debora123]

Once again the burden of proof is on you that only the “conjugal act” and sex acts have nature of being procreative and unitive. I have provided proof. Just posting you disagree does nothing straighten this position or further the debate.

Oh good, bc I don’t want to further the debate. I disagree.

 

[Pilosopo]

…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill? (given no fertilization has taken place)

From what I understand, when an act is intrinsically evil, it means that the act is ALWAYS wrong. No matter who what where when why.

If that’s the case, then why is it morally permissible to contracept against a rapist? (given no harm is being done to an already fertilized egg if one is present)

Chiming into the discussion, I think the distinction is made between what is truly a contraceptive procedure and an abortifacient one (tantamount to abortion). Learning from the previous posts, it is morally justified for a woman victimized by rape to prevent fertilization, so in effect, to use a contraception. Recapping… stop fertilization by an offender’s sperm, contraception/morning after pill… OK. Also, apparently, contraception is not an intrinsically evil act. Whereas abortion is.
(Personally, and now not so privately, I take issue to any act being intrinsically evil…There was a time when I saw such acts as abortion, slavery, rape, murder… as all intrinsically evil acts. But I now cast doubt on such a stance, because there seem to be details of history, culture, personal circumstances, etc., that make the performance of an act more than just about the act, or the “act in itself.”)