If contraception is intrinsically evil...

[fix]

I have not read every post so I do not know if this was posted:

Catholic Teaching on Contraception: For Married Couples Only?

 

[CatholcCrusader]

…Then why is it morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill?..

Who says its morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill?

 

[LJN21]

I have not read every post so I do not know if this was posted:

Catholic Teaching on Contraception: For Married Couples Only?

Gee, that looks like what I’ve been saying all long… he even uses Aquinas there at the end

The theological tradition is similarly consistent. When Thomas Aquinas formulates his argument against contraceptive-type acts, he singles out every deliberate attempt to render a male ejaculatory act (“emission of semen”) incapable of generating. In fact, his discussion of contraceptive acts is in the context of a discussion of why intercourse between non-married persons is wrong [2]. For Aquinas, this type of act is contra naturam (against nature). Aquinas’ contra naturam argument against contraceptive acts dominates Catholic theological literature on the question up until the middle of the 20th century.

Since texts of canon law going back 700 years, papal encyclicals in the 20th century and the most influential theological arguments in Catholic history formulate the norm against contraceptive-type acts as universal, applied to every act by every person intended to render sexual acts sterile, the view that the Church’s condemnation only applies within marriage—and therefore does not apply to (i.e., the acts can be legitimate and even obligatory for) fornicators, adulterers and prostitutes—ought to be set aside as inconstant with Catholic traditional teaching.

 

[LJN21]

Who says its morally permissible for a rape victim to take the morning after pill?

The short of it is “some” theologians think it might be permissible and a few bishops have allowed it only after an negative ovulation test has occurred.

 

[levinas12]

But the pill is abortifacient. Everyone here has said the pill is sinful unless if it’s for medical purposes.

If the pill is abortifacient, what medical condition would justify its use?

Would the woman from a moral perspective have to abstain from sex while using the pill?

 

[fix]

But the pill is abortifacient. Everyone here has said the pill is sinful unless if it’s for medical purposes.

SOME people, myself included, have suggested that perhaps using barrier contraceptives (non abotifacient) outside of marriage is a moot point.

Objects are not sinful. Only actions can be sinful.

 

[levinas12]

Would you say to someone who argues that fornication where a condom is used - because it prevents disease and unwanted pregnancy - is more “moral” than “unprotected” fornication?

 

[LJN21]

If the pill is abortifacient, what medical condition would justify its use?

Would the woman from a moral perspective have to abstain from sex while using the pill?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

However I did find this interesting too.
pugiofidei.com/serpa.htm
and this one
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=416438&Pg=Forum&Pgnu=1&recnu=

I’ve always wondered how by using double effect, the pill is justified so easily now days. The good which we intend must outweigh the bad. This would seem too narrow the use of the pill for therapeutic means down to a life and death situation, since there is a decent chance of a child dying via chemical abortion at some point. Anyway. that is really probably a topic for another thread though.

 

[levinas12]

Anyway. that is really probably a topic for another thread though.

You’re probably right. I do have a tendency to digress.

But your cites and comments have been very helpful. I have found such incredibly useful information on this thread.

The first cite you mentioned (to a 2004 exchange on this forum) includes a reply from a priest (Father Vincent Serpa) that says it’s morally permissible to use the pill for medical reasons even if you’re not abstaining from sex - based on the distinction of unintended miscarriage. If this is correct, wouldn’t recast some of the discussion we’re currently having on this thread?

 

[levinas12]

You’re probably right. I do have a tendency to digress.

But your cites and comments have been very helpful. I have found such incredibly useful information on this thread.

The first cite you mentioned (to a 2004 exchange on this forum) includes a reply from a priest (Father Vincent Serpa) that says it’s morally permissible to use the pill for medical reasons even if you’re not abstaining from sex - based on the distinction of unintended miscarriage. If this is correct, wouldn’t it recast some of the discussion we’re currently having on this thread?

Oops! Apparently, Fr. Serpa created quite a controversy. I’ve now read your two cites which argue very effectively against Fr. Serpa’s position. Unfortunately, I got timed out before I could edit the above posting.

All of this is real learning experience for me.